Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Vocational Training

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish list showing the Vocational Training Schemes in which training for ex-Service men can still be provided; in what trades vocational training courses are no longer available; what is the reason for the cancellation of courses in certain trades; and whether training still available is in accordance with the various pledges to ex-Service men in this connection.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am sending the hon. and gallant Member the list for which he asks. In the autumn of 1946 training in the furniture trades in England and Wales was suspended owing to shortage of timber supplies. In October, 1947, training in six building crafts was restricted to the disabled owing to the changes in the building programme. A similar restriction was applied to boot and shoe repairing and to six other comparatively small schemes owing to limited placing opportunities. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment caused to many ex-Service men who have been looking forward to vocational training in their chosen profession; and cannot he give a fuller explanation of the reasons for the cancellation of these courses?

Mr. Isaacs: Ex-Service men are given preference for any vacancies that arise, but the closing down of these schemes has been due, first, to the shortage of materials, and, secondly, to the fact that opportunities do not exist in the industries to absorb all those which would otherwise be taken into them. The schemes will be continued.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Is the Minister aware that there are some thousands of ex-Service men who are still waiting to undergo vocational training; and what steps does he propose to take to shorten the period of waiting?

Mr. Isaacs: I thought that I had explained the case. Ex-Service men who are waiting are mostly in employment and will continue in their employment. Naturally they want to get facilities to improve their industrial status, and we shall bring them into the scheme as soon as supplies and vacancies are available.

Nurses, Birmingham

Mrs. Wills: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to recruit new entrants to the nursing staffs of the hospitals in Birmingham, as many wards will have to close unless new staff is quickly obtained.

Mr. Isaacs: I am doing everything possible to assist hospitals throughout the country, as well as in Birmingham, to obtain the nurses they need. In particular, special conferences of hospital matrons have recently been held in Birmingham to encourage the greater use of part-time nurses who can be a valuable reinforcement to their local hospitals.

Mrs. Wills: Will the Minister treat this as a matter of urgency, because at the present time there is a long list of patients waiting to go into Birmingham Infirmary, who are urgently in need of treatment and who cannot be taken in because of shortage of staff? I understand that there are likely to be even more wards closed in the near future.

Mr. Isaacs: We are aware of the great need, and an active campaign is being undertaken to recruit nurses and to encourage schoolgirls to become interested, but this does not seem to attract the people whom we think ought to take up this work.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Will my right hon. Friend remember, when he interviews the matrons, to suggest to them that nurses should be allowed to live outside the hospitals, and also to suggest that as much part-time work as possible is provided? Would not this be the best form of recruitment?

Mr. Isaacs: These points will be drawn to the attention of the matrons, but I shall not be doing the interviewing.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Coldrick: asked the Minister of Labour how many people are registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges in Bristol; and how many are signing on at the Eastville exchange.

Mr. Isaacs: Three thousand four hundred and twenty-seven at 16th February, including 567 at Eastville employment exchange.

Mr. Coldrick: Is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Bristol owing to the inability on the part of the exchanges to find employment, while advertisements are appearing seeking accommodation for Polish workers coming into the city?

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars about that and I will look into it. I am not aware that is so.

Mr. Timmons: asked the Minister of Labour what are the registered numbers of unemployed at Airdrie, Bellshill, Hamilton, Motherwell, Coatbridge and Uddingston, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: At 16th February the numbers were 1,461 at Airdrie, 780 at Bellshill, 1,045 at Hamilton, 998 at Motherwell, 1,799 at Coatbridge, and 394 at Uddingston.

Mr. Timmons: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these numbers have risen rapidly during the past few weeks, and will he keep the matter strictly before his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent this area from becoming the black spot it was in 1939?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Like other Development Areas, this area is suffering

from the shortage of materials which prevents the completion of factories and other work planned and provided for these areas, but the work is being proceeded with and priority will be given where necessary.

Elstow Brick Works (Closure)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Labour what action he has taken in the matter of finding alternative employment for those British workers available as a result of the closure of Elstow brickworks, Bedfordshire.

Mr. Isaacs: By arrangement with my Department all British workers who became redundant as a result of the closing of Elstow brickworks were offered alternative work by the London Brick Company. Workers who were unwilling to accept the alternative work offered have been interviewed for other employment, and it is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty in placing them in other essential work.

Foreign Workers

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour how many foreign people have been found employment by his Department since 1945; how many have been trained; how many members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are engaged in training and what they are teaching; how many Europeans it is expected will be found employment; and in what industry.

Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the Question is, about 104,000, to the second part, 11,000, to the third part, 6,500 mainly in coalmining. It is not possible to forecast how many volunteer workers from the Continent will be recruited, but it is hoped to provide sufficient workers to meet the full requirements for foreign labour of the undermanned industries, particularly coalmining, agriculture and textiles.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can we be told what is the purpose of members of the Polish Resettlement Corps being engaged in training as teachers if there are British men and women to be employed?

Mr. Isaacs: I must admit I was rather confused by the phraseology of my hon. Friend's Question. I read his Question to mean being taught, instead of teaching. I will look into it from that point of view.

Ministry of Labour Gazette (Reprints)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will again publish the reprints from the Ministry of Labour Gazette for December, 1940, and February, 1941, sand include the latest similar figures.

Mr. Isaacs: The reprints for December, 1940, and January, 1941, are still available and on sale at His Majesty's Stationery Office. The reprint from the February, 1941, Gazette is out of print, and the demand is so small that the printing of a further supply is not justified. There are no similar figures for any later date.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these reprints gave great satisfaction in the organised trade union movement, and that they enabled trade unionists to measure their position? Has not the time arrived when similar figures should be given in order that they may examine the position now in relation to what it was when those reprints were made?

Mr. Isaacs: As I indicated, two are still available, but for the other one apparently there is not sufficient demand to justify reprinting. In any case it would hardly be proper to compare that with the present, in view of the various changes that have taken place.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider the need for the latest similar figures to be published so that trade unionists can compare their position with what it was in the days when these figures were first printed?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Average Earnings

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the average wages in 1947 of those engaged in the engineering industry, pottery industry, and cotton, showing separately male and female workers.

Mr. Isaacs: Particulars as to the average earnings at April, 1947, in these and other industries are set out in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for October, 1947.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Seeing that the workers are once more being called upon to save this country by working harder than ever,

will my hon. Friend undertake to have the average wages published in HANSARD and similar comparable figures of the wages paid in the United States?

Mr. Isaacs: I will not give an undertaking, but I will look at it to see what is the scope of the thing.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that it is useless to give wages in terms of pounds sterling unless he also gives the real purchasing power and value of those wages?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think it is necessary for me to give it. Every housewife knows it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we do not mind our figures being compared with the figures for the United States?

Brewing Industry

Mr. Sargood: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that several industrial disputes have recently occurred in the brewing industry; and what form of joint negotiating machinery is in operation between the employers and the trade unions concerned with the industry.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of several stoppages of work which have occurred in the brewing industry during recent months. There is no national joint negotiating machinery. Arrangements for the settlement of terms and conditions of employment vary from district to district.

Mr. Sargood: Having regard to the successful operation of the national joint machinery in a large number of other industries, will the Minister use what power he may have to see that general negotiating machinery is set up in this industry?

Mr. Isaacs: It would be wise if the two sides were to consider the possibility of adopting national machinery. I do not propose to make use of any power, but I will direct the attention of the parties to the question.

Catering Wages Regulations

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by small licensed residential hotels in various parts of the country in implementing the new wages regulations; whether steps will be taken to simplify these regulations; and


whether also in view of the Government's decision to discourage further wage increases action will be taken to ensure that the machinery of the Catering Wages Act is no longer used to impose wage increases on the hotels and restaurants industry.

Mr. Isaacs: The wages set out in the order were proposed by the Licensed Hotels and Restaurants Wages Board, which consists of representatives of employers and workers in the industry, together with three independent members. Any question of formulating proposals for simplifying or otherwise amending the order is a matter for the Wages Board and not for me.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that his answer is not very helpful, and that the small hotel owners have been working under very difficult conditions for some time past, but now that the basic petrol ration has been removed it is almost impossible for them to continue?

Mr. Isaacs: These proposals were drafted by this representative body appointed by the industry. They were advertised to the whole industry and any observations and criticisms submitted were considered. They were only passed to me for my signature after I was satisfied that the terms of the Act were carried out. I have no power to interfere.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman missing the whole point of the Question, which is that these regulations were drawn up before the withdrawal of the basic petrol ration introduced completely different circumstances?

Mr. Isaacs: I did not miss the point of the Question put to me. The Question I answered emphasised that certain things had been done; but I have no power to interfere. If the bodies themselves like to get together and make a change, that is up to them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the catering workers have been waiting for over five years for these proposals, and, in fact, they should be increased rather than decreased?

Disabled Persons, Brighton and Hove

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of

insured persons employed by firms having quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act in Brighton and Hove; the numbers of registered disabled persons and the numbers of such persons employed in the Brighton and Hove district; and the quota which would need to be observed to reduce unemployment amongst the disabled to that obtaining for all insured persons in the Brighton and Hove district.

Mr. Isaacs: The information requested in the first part of the Question is not available. The latest total of persons registered as disabled at the Brighton and Hove employment exchange is 5,472; exact statistics of those in employment are not available but the number recorded as unemployed on 16th February was 607. It is not possible to make the calculation asked for in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Teelinģ: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable discontent in those two towns at the lack of employment being given to these people, and will he press the employment exchanges to do everything possible to find other employment for them?

Mr. Isaacs: Last night on the Adjournment I gave a full and detailed explanation of what the Government are doing under this Act, and Members who were interested were present to hear what I had to say.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that I recently drew his attention to a number of particularly bad cases of disabled persons in Brighton and Hove who were unable to get suitable employment? Will he look further into this matter in these areas?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, without any equivocation I will give an unqualified promise. We are most anxious to do what we can for these people. The House of Commons gave a pledge by Act of Parliament, and we are anxious to see that that pledge is fulfilled.

Registration

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of persons who registered under S.R. & O., 2409, as not being gainfully employed, and how many of those who registered have now been placed in work of national importance;
(2) the total number of persons who have registered in all categories under S.R. & O., 2409; and how many of those who registered have now been placed in work of national importance.

Mr. Isaacs: Up to 28th February, 70,780 persons had been registered under the Registration for Employment Order, of whom 13,174 were street traders, 23,289 were persons not gainfully employed or gainfully occupied, and 34,317 were employed by certain non-essential undertakings. The work of examining all these cases, and, where necessary, interviewing the person registered, will take a considerable time. Up to 18th February, 1,692 persons registered had been placed in work of national importance, of whom 133 were registered as street traders, 1,508 as persons not gainfully employed or gainfully occupied, and 51 as employed in nonessential undertakings.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider, firstly, that 70,000-odd represents the total number who were liable for registration; secondly, that the figure of 1,000-odd which he has given is a satisfactory number of placements as a result of that registration; and, finally, that it justifies that registration?

Mr. Isaacs: As for the first part of the supplementary question, I cannot give an answer because the registration is not yet complete, but is continuing. As to the second part, all of the people who were offered these posts accepted them. None of them was directed nor was any pressure brought to bear on them. As the whole list has to be surveyed, it is not bad to get an extra thousand.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the survey will be completed?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I cannot.

Mr. Frank Byers: Can the Minister say what proportion the number of people placed bears to the total number of civil servants in the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Isaacs: I will get a mathematician to work that out for me. Every person employed in the Ministry of Labour is fully and gainfully employed—[Interruption.]—except the Minister.

Cotton Industry (Married Women Workers)

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Labour what figures he has obtained from managements of the cotton industry concerning married women who have expressed a desire to return to the industry provided their children can be accommodated during work hours, and what steps are being taken to provide extended day nursery facilities.

Mr. Isaacs: It is estimated that over 6,000 married women ex-cotton operatives would be willing to return to the industry if their children could be accommodated during working hours. Difficulties in providing extended day nursery facilities arise from shortage of premises and equipment and skilled staff. Arrangements including the provisions of huts have been made with the Ministry of Works which should materially assist local authorities and employers in overcoming these difficulties.

Mr. Randall: In view of the very large number of married women who are waiting to go into the textile industry, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that accommodation is provided with urgency?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Where there is accommodation, we often find ourselves held up by the provision of some sanitary appliance or some piece of equipment, but we have now got the co-operation of the Ministry of Works, and whatever priority can be given will be given.

Mr. S. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that many day nurseries have been closed since the war ended owing to the action of the Ministry of Health in placing half the responsibility on the local authorities, and will he get in touch with the Ministry of Health with a view to reversing that decision and getting the Ministry of Health to take full responsibility.

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give a definite answer to the last part of the supplementary question. As to the first part, we are in co-operation with the Ministry of Health and we are anxious to get this thing moving.

Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend remember that during the war no difficulties were allowed to stand in the way of the provision of these nurseries and that it is essential they should be brought


into being again? Will he take all steps to see that the necessary equipment is provided? I think his excuse was a very weak one.

Mr. Isaacs: A special Parliamentary Secretaries' Committee is in charge of this under the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and they have authority to drive right ahead. Whether we can make a war of it, I do not know.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not the case that up till now the Ministry of Labour have depended upon employers providing day nurseries? Will the right hon. Gentleman now impress on local authorities that it is their duty to revive the day nurseries provided during the war?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman were aware of what we have been doing, he would not put his question in that way.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the standards for the care of these children will in now way be lowered, and before he takes any definite steps, will he give a further assurance that he will always be in touch with the Ministry of Health on the matter?

Mr. Isaacs: The last thing I want to do in this House is to give assurances; but I can assure the hon. Member that the points to which he has drawn attention are under consideration.

Mrs. Manning: In view of the importance of mothers staying at home to look after the younger children, is my right hon. Friend exploring all the parts of the education system which might be used, in nursery education for children over the age of two?

Mr. Isaacs: We are getting rather a long way from creches in factories. My problem is to provide facilities for these mothers of young children who wish to go to work.

B.B.C. Siamese Section (Editor)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour how many British subjects were put forward by his Department for the post of editor for the Siamese section of the B.B.C. Far Eastern Broadcasting

Service; and what were their qualifications.

Mr. Isaacs: My Department's dealings with individual employers and work-people in connection with the filling of notified vacancies are confidential, and I am therefore not at liberty to disclose this information.

Mr. Teeling: While I do not wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give any assurances, may I ask him whether he is aware that some 400 people applied, of whom 15 came from his Ministry? Why was this post given to a Siamese when so many others were applying? I can show the right hon. Gentleman cases of really good qualified people. Will he look into this matter again?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. When we send names of persons to an employer, we leave the employer to make his choice, and I am not going to try to exercise any persuasion.

Mr. Teeling: Is it not the case that one has to have permission from the Ministry of Labour to employ foreigners?

Mr. Isaacs: That is another question. If the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper I will look into it.

Iron Foundries (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Labour if and when he proposes to cause to be implemented some of the more urgent of the recommendations set out in the Report of the Joint Advisory Committee on Conditions in Iron Foundries.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to issue regulations making obligatory compliance with the standards set out in the Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Conditions in Iron Foundries.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friends to the very full reply that I gave on 4th February to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Redundancies (Advance Notice)

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Labour what steps does he take to advise industry of the practice of the most enlightened employers in handling advanced notice of redundancy with particular regard to the length of such notice.

Mr. Isaacs: My local offices have standing instructions pointing out the importance of maintaining local contacts with employers with a view to obtaining advance notice of expected redundancies. I have already under consideration, however, the question whether further action should be taken with this end in view.

Mr. Yates: While I appreciate that answer, I wonder whether the Minister can do something to speed up this matter, in view of the fact that some employers do supplement even the unemployment pay, and as salaried workers, such as bank clerks, usually receive a month's notice, does not he think it reasonable that in the case of redundancy the workers should be given more than one week's notice?

Mr. Isaacs: The trouble is that while we earnestly request employers to give this notice, many of them do not comply and we have no power to control them. However, we shall try again to see whether persuasion can get something from them.

Temporary Civil Servants

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the large number of temporary civil servants employed as enforcement officers, inspectors and other posts in connection with Government imposed controls, he can give an assurance that he has a scheme for absorption of these temporary civil servants and officials when it is found possible to decrease the number of existing controls and to ensure that these people are enabled to engage in productive work.

Mr. Isaacs: No special schemes are necessary: when temporary civil servants become redundant the facilities offered by local offices of my Department are available to assist them to find suitable productive employment.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have the greatest possible sympathy with the large number of temporary civil servants who have been called temporary for a great many years? Is it not possible to have an all-out drive in order to clear up this matter, which has been going on for years?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman wants me to clear up. Does he want me to clear it up by dispensing with the temporary civil servants?

Mr. De la Bère: Make them permanent or put them into production—one or the other.

Mr. Isaacs: We are doing it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Why should there be these enforcement officers at all? Surely the police are the proper officers to see that the law is properly observed?

Mr. Isaacs: I did not know that this Question related specially to enforcement officers.

Mr. De la Bère: Of course it did. I put it down.

NATIONAL SERVICE CALL-UP, 1948 AND 1949

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish the ages and dates on which men will be called up, during 1948 and 1949, under the National Service Act; and the estimated number of men in each intake.

Mr. Isaacs: As set out in the statement relating to Defence, 1948 (Cmd. 7327) the maximum nurriber of National Service men to be called up in each of the years 1948 and 1949 is approximately 150,000. Intakes will be spread more or less evenly throughout the period. Postings to the Royal Navy and R.A.F. are at present weekly and to the Army twice monthly. As in former years postings will be suspended over the Christmas periods. The normal age of call-up will be 18 years 3 months in 1948 and 18 years 6 months in 1949.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to enable those who wish to start their period of National Service at the age of 18 to do so, if that can be arranged, in order to reduce the very considerable inconvenience which is caused?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. It is now definitely a part of the scheme that those who wish to be called up earlier to enable them to fit in with university training or industrial work can exercise an option to do so.

Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last week I submitted a case in such circumstances and that his Department refused it?

Mr. Isaacs: Possibly there was quite a good reason for that. I have not seen the letter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Experimental Houses

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for the erection of experimental houses in Scotland, what are the names of firms undertaking such work, and what arrangements, by sale or letting, are made for the disposal of such houses on satisfactory completion.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Licences for experimental houses in entirely new methods of construction are normally issued by the Ministry of Works to the promoter of the house; but where no radical departure from established methods is involved, application for a licence may be made to the local authority in the normal way. I would refer the hon. Member to the monthly Housing Returns which contain a list of non-traditional houses approved for erection by local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association. In the case of private builders the disposal of houses is in the hands of the owner, subject to the usual control of selling price and rent.

Sir W. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the names of the firms engaged on this experimental work? I am told that the number is very few, so perhaps he could give them to me?

Mr. Woodburn: There are quite a number, but they can be seen in the Housing Returns.

Street Lighting, Culter

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give permission for additional street lighting to be installed in Malcolm Road, Culter, Aberdeenshire; and whether he is aware that no reply has been received to the application which was originally made on 4th June, 1947, or to reminders which have been sent from time to time to his Department.

Mr. Woodburn: I am informed that the general policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport as regards street lighting was explained to the council

some time ago, but I understand that further consideration is now being given to this particular case.

Mr. Spence: Does that mean that the licence will now be granted for this work to be done?

Mr. Woodburn: That question would need to be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Local Authorities' Loans (Interest)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the widespread opposition of Scottish town councils to the proposal contained in the recent circular from the Scottish Home Department intimating that the rate of interest on housing loans is to be increased to 3 per cent.; whether he has consulted the local authorities on the matter; and if he is prepared to reconsider his decision.

Mr. Woodburn: I have received representations from a number of Scottish town councils in regard to the recent increase in the rate of interest on loans to local authorities. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th January to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin).

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities have housing schemes which are incomplete, and greatly delayed, on account of the Government's policy by which they have to pay interest on loans where they get no return in rent whatever; and is not that a very serious and most unfair burden on the local authorities?

Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Member had better await the further replies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are private lending organisations, unconnected with the Government, which are prepared to offer loans at 2⅜—2⅞ per cent? Is it encouraging to local authorities to learn that the Government are not doing as well as private moneylenders?

Mr. Emus Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the more enterprising councils


in Scotland have largely helped to solve this problem by establishing municipal banks?

Mr. Stewart: The Secretary of State said, in reply to my supplementary question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be answering some further questions, or making some further statement on this particular Scottish matter; what does he mean by that?

Mr. Woodburn: This is not a particular Scottish point. The work of the Public Works Loans Board goes on all over the country.

Youth Organisations (Cheap Travel Facilities)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken upon the appeal by the Scottish Youth Hostels Association for a restoration of cheap facilities to enable Scottish youth organisations to enjoy modest and healthy recreation.

Mr. Woodburn: I have brought the request of the Scottish Youth Hostels Association to the attention of the British Transport Commission and I understand that they are looking into the matter.

Mr. Stewart: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has recommended the Commission to take a sympathetic view of this matter?

Mr. Woodburn: I have brought the request to their notice.

Shopkeepers (Eviction Notices)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of threatened hardship to shopkeepers caused by eviction notices on excessive increases in rent have been placed before him since 1st January, 1948.

Mr. Woodburn: I have received since 1st January complaints from or on behalf of 296 individual shopkeepers. In addition, there are references in letters of representation or complain to some 150 other cases.

Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that this number disproves completely the evidence in the Taylor Committee's Report, will my right hon. Friend now urge upon his colleagues in the Government the necessity for legislation before May?

Mr. Woodburn: I have nothing further to add to what I said last week.

Press Officer (Advertisement)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in which journals the post of Press officer to the Scottish Home Department was advertised prior to the appointment recently made.

Mr. Woodburn: Particulars of the recent vacancy for a press officer were, in accordance with normal procedure, circulated by the appointments office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service to appointment offices throughout the country. Thereafter, owing to the lack of suitable candidates on their register, the appointments office advertised the vacancy in the "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald."

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMBLESS EX-SERVICE MEN (BOOTS AND SHOES)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will devise a scheme whereby ex-Service men with one artificial leg can obtain, with every boot or shoe provided for the artificial leg, two boots or shoes for the sound leg, so as to allow for the extra wear and tear due to the unnatural tread and to the extra weight on the sound leg.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): When initially an ex-Service man is provided with an artificial leg he is also supplied, free of charge, with a pair of light shoes if required. I am, however, giving sympathetic consideration to the point raised by my hon. Friend and will write to him on the matter.

Mr. Symonds: Would the Minister expedite consideration of this, as members of the Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association feel very keenly about the matter?

Mr. Buchanan: When my hon. Friend knows me better, he will understand that with me sympathetic consideration means no delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Public Meetings

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued to commanding officers in charge of prisoner-of-war camps regarding the appearance of prisoners of war at


public meetings; what recent changes have been made in such instructions; the nature of these; and the reasons governing the introduction of such changes.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): No instructions have been issued about prisoners of war attending public meetings. As regards speaking in public, prisoners have always been discouraged from making public speeches. An instruction has recently been issued, however, that they should be forbidden to speak at public meetings or meetings at which Press reporters are present. The reason for this instruction was that an undesirable speech made by a prisoner of war was the subject of adverse Press comment in this country and in Berlin.

Repatriation

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute an inquiry in all the remaining prisoner of war camps to ascertain the number of prisoners still held in this country who are now without homes in Germany, or who cannot return to what was once their home, for political reasons.

Mr. Shinwell: All prisoners of war held in the United Kingdom are members of the former Wehrmacht and must, under a Control Council directive, be returned to Germany, except those who claim non-German nationality and are accepted by the country concerned. In these circumstances, I do not propose to institute an inquiry as suggested by my hon. Friend, as no use could be made of the information when obtained.

Mr. Stokes: That may very well be in my right hon. Friend's mind, but is he aware that a number of these people have no homes now, and do not want to go back to the Eastern zone? If he will not make an inquiry, will he at least give an assurance that no one will be sent to the Eastern zone who does not want to go?

Mr. Shinwell: I will look into that.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend look into it promptly?

Mr. Shinwell: I always look into things promptly.

Parcels (Vegetable Seeds)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will permit German

prisoners of war to include small quantities of vegetable seeds in the parcels they send home.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that for supply reasons vegetable seeds are not allowed to be included in gift parcels by any sender in the United Kingdom, unless special permission is granted, I regret that I am unable to adopt this suggestion.

Mr. Driberg: Would not a very small quantity in all be involved, in view of the very small number of prisoners remaining here, and would not this be an encouraging gesture, having regard to the food situation in Germany?

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that special permission requires an export licence [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—so I understand, and I am not responsible for export licences.

Easter and Whitsuntide (Travel Limit)

Mr. Skeffinģton-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a universal raising of the travel limit without individual application and the general granting of late passes can be made available to all prisoners of war still remaining in this country both at Easter and Whitsuntide; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Shinwell: I have had instructions issued that at Easter and Whitsuntide prisoners of war of good character should, local conditions permitting, be allowed to visit friends up to a distance of about 20 miles once, and should be allowed one pass up to midnight.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Parked Vehicles, Germany

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate value when new of the 55,000 odd vehicles parked in Germany which had not been handed over to Disposal authorities or to local authorities on 27th January, 1948; and the approximate value of those vehicles today.

Mr. Shinwell: The number of vehicles held on Army charge in vehicle parks in Germany on 27th January was some 72,60o. The value of these vehicles when


new is estimated to have been very approximately 3£ million. Their present sale value is estimated to be very roughly between £9 million and £9½ million.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that they are obviously rapidly deteriorating into scrap? Would it not be a good thing if they were either handed over to some competent person who would retrieve what is left, or else were deliberately broken up and used to meet the scrap needs of this country?

Mr. Shinwell: First of all, they are not rapidly deteriorating into scrap——

Mr. Stokes: They are, on the Minister's own figures.

Mr. Shinwell: They are being carefully preserved and, where necessary, are being reconditioned as speedily as possible. I have someone in the zone who went out recently to supervise the examination of these vehicles, in order to see what should be done.

Mr. Stokes: But will my right hon. Friend come along with me, and I will show him how bad they are?

Mr. Shinwell: It is unnecessary for me to accompany my hon. Friend. I have already been in Germany.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Are all these vehicles being retained for service?

Mr. Shinwell: Some of them will be disposed of, but we need to retain a very large number because for the last two years we have produced no new vehicles, and do not expect to produce any new vehicles for some considerable time to come.

Mr. Jennings: Will not the Minister agree that there are many of these wagons which could be brought into this country and used in the production drive, and that it is high time they were?

Mr. Shinwell: That would require, first, reconditioning where necessary, and then their transport to this country. We are not certain they are required here, but we shall inquire into that.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Could the Minister say how many people are employed looking after these vehicles?

Mr. Shinwell: Not without notice.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago his predecessor assured this House that something would be done about these vehicles, and is it not a crying scandal that this should be going on three years after the end of the German war?

Mr. Shinwell: Something is being done about these vehicles. They are being disposed of when possible. They are being reconditioned and sent to the various units, and, as I have said, we must retain a very large number because there is no hope of producing new vehicles for the Army for a long time to come.

Major Beamish: Is the Secretary of State aware that the slackness with which this matter has been handled has involved British taxpayers in the loss of several million pounds in the last two years?

Mr. Shinwell: I deny that there has been any slackness, and certainly there is no slackness now.

Mr. Scollan: Might I ask the Minister whether his Department has taken into consideration that these vehicles have been lying idle since the middle of 1945, that no attempt was made during the first year either to use them or to give them to people who required them, and that, since then, they have been deteriorating, and now we are involved in cost in trying to save them for the next war?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already said that a very large number of these vehicles are serviceable; but many require reconditioning, and that is being done, having regard to the supply of labour available.

St. Peter's Barracks, Jersey

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War what price was received for St. Peter's Barracks and the adjoining land in Jersey; what was the basis of valuation; and what was the land worth in the open market.

Mr. Shinwell: This barracks, with the adjoining land, is being sold for £5,000. The basis of valuation was the full building value of the site. Owing to restrictions which could be imposed by the States of Jersey, sale to a private individual or individuals was not a practical proposition.

Sir W. Smithers: While realising the suffering that was caused by the German


occupation of the Channel Islands, can the Secretary of State for War assure the House that the interests of the British taxpayer are safeguarded in this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: The barracks were no longer required by the Army, and as the authorities in Jersey wished to use the site for another purpose, we naturally concluded this bargain.

Young Soldiers, Palestine

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it was with his approval that three soldiers under 19 years of age, whose names and particulars have been sent to him have been placed on a draft for Palestine; and whether he is satisfied that these men are sufficiently trained for this posting.

Mr. Shinwell: These soldiers are proceeding on drafts to the Middle East, not to Palestine, but they would be eligible for posting to Palestine after they arrive in the Middle East. As, however, there are elsewhere in the Middle East infantry battalions for which they might be required, it may be that they will be posted to one of these battalions, rather than to a battalion in Palestine. They had completed their primary and corps training over a month ago.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that these three boys have had only three months training, will not the right hon. Gentleman take action to ensure that they are not sent into a situation in Palestine which is appallingly difficult even for tried troops?

Mr. Shinwell: Unfortunately, the situation is of such a character that we have a large number of boys under 19. We have to post them somewhere, particularly in view of the need for keeping units up to efficiency. I should very much like to keep the boys out of Palestine, but unfortunately when sent to the Middle East some of them have to be posted to Palestine to make good the deficiencies in some of the units.

Mr. Lipson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sending of these young boys is causing unreasonable anxiety to parents, and in view of the fact that the number cannot be very great, can he not place an absolute embargo on boys going to Palestine?

Mr. Shinwell: I am fully aware of the anxiety. I have received many letters, and have looked into the matter very carefully, but if I am to maintain the efficiency of the units in Palestine until the evacuation is completed, I am bound to leave the matter of posting in the hands of Middle East Command.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that an Army of half a million men cannot maintain strengths in Palestine without posting boys of 18 there?

Mr. Shinwell: The Army of half a million men is widely dispersed, and there are many commitments. I can assure the hon. Member that I have no alternative, having given the matter careful consideration.

Postings, Near East

Mr. Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for War why many soldiers were sent to Liverpool just before Christmas to embark for the Near East only to discover that the ship they were sent to travel in was already full.

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am aware, no soldiers were sent to Liverpool in the circumstances described in the Question.

Mr. Bossom: Is it not ridiculous to send men to Liverpool when there is no accommodation for them? Does not the right hon. Gentleman use the telephone, or ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Shinwell: According to my information, the last troopship to leave Liverpool for the Near and Middle East—which left on 20th December—was not full to capacity.

Mr. Bossom: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the Question on the Paper?

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the way in which the Question was worded, I am bound to deny it.

War Cemeteries, Germany (Relatives' Visits)

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for War when the Service ministers will complete their work on the consideration of a scheme whereby parents desirous of visiting war graves in Germany may do so; is he aware that mothers and fathers in the Spennymoor


division are anxiously waiting for such announcement; and will he do everything possible to hasten the completion of this scheme, and thus relieve the tension of these parents.

Mr. Shinwell: I am hopeful that it may be possible to make arrangements for relatives to visit some war cemeteries in Germany during this summer, but I cannot yet announce a detailed scheme. It should, however, be realised that the number and length of visits will for the present necessarily be limited.

Mr. Murray: Will my right hon. Friend press this matter, as I can assure him that parents in my Division are very disturbed? It is nearly three years since the war ended, and these people are very anxious to go out there.

Mr. Shinwell: I have been pressing the matter, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, it is conditioned by difficulties of transport and accommodation.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the same matters in mind in regard to visits to Italy, which is the subject of Question 35, which I apologise for not being here to ask?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does not the right hon. Geitleman think it anomalous that foreigners resident on the continent should be allowed to cross the frontier and visit war graves, while British next-of-kin cannot do so?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that that is so, but perhaps the hon. Member will give me details.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter from him saying that it is possible?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not even aware of that.

Mr. George Porter: Is it not a fact that graves cannot be visited until they are handed over to the War Graves Commission?

Mr. Shinwell: This applies to Germany, where I think there are special exceptions. Some cemeteries are held by the military.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (TERRITORIAL ARMY)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that boards of nationalised industries will grant two weeks holidays to enable employees who are members of the Territorial Army to attend annual camp.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The attention of the boards concerned has already been drawn to the statement made on my behalf by the then Secretary of State for War in this House on 21st July last. As was stated in answers given in the House on 9th March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, some of the nationalised industries have already arranged to grant additional leave for the purpose of attending Auxiliary Force camps, and I understand that the boards of the others have the matter under consideration.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these boards are alleged—I say alleged--to be granting only one week's leave for a two weeks' Territorial camp? Is this the example which employers throughout the country are expected to follow?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, it is not intended that there shall be two-week camps this year; they are eight day camps.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Mr. Cook: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the growing and changing requirements in the content and administration of university education in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. On the information before me, I am not satisfied that this step is necessary, or desirable.

Mr. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many young people have to attend school three years after they have taken the higher leaving certificate to qualify for the university? Is it not certain that there are places which could be made available to them, if the administration were looked at?

The Prime Minister: That may be so, but it hardly calls for a Royal Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sterling Balances (Interest)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of interest paid on sterling balances in 1947, and the total amount paid in respect of such interest during 1947.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): Apart from cash holdings, a great part of the sterling balances is held in the form of Treasury bills, bearing interest at ½ per cent., amounting to about £10 million a year. In addition, the Crown Agents for the Colonies, Currency Boards and similar authorities continue to hold short and medium term British Government securities at varying higher rates.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Chancellor able to say whether the interest on blocked sterling balances is itself blocked, or made available for current purchases?

Sir S. Cripps: I could not say without notice.

External Debt

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase there would be to the National Debt of £25,631 million if National Debt arising out of the 1914–18 war was added.

Sir S. Cripps: The published figures of external debt exclude £1,032,427,000 in respect of debt arising out of the war of 1914–18.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future not try to cover up his tracks, but let us have a full and frank publication of the state of the country's finances?

Sir S. Cripps: We discontinued publication of this figure many years ago.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the removal of Purchase Tax on housewives' overalls.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement, but I would point out that Utility overalls are already exempt from tax.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present estimated revenue from the Purchase Tax levied upon medicines, drugs, disinfectants, toothbrushes and toothpaste and all other items necessary which promote hygiene and the maintenance of health; and whether he will reconsider the position with regard to taxation of such goods before the National Health Act is brought into force.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not sure precisely what range of items the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but receipts of Purchase Tax from medicines, drugs, disinfectants, toothbrushes and toothpaste are estimated to be in the region of £15 million a year. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes."

British Electricity Stock (Terms)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the Treasury's estimate of the value of British Electricity Stock for purposes of compensation will, contrary to the precedent of British Transport Stock, be based upon arithmetical calculations.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The terms of British Electricity Stock will he decided in conformity with Sections 20 and 25 of the Electricity Act, 1947.

Sir J. Mellor: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that, if a little arithmetic had been used by the Treasury, it might have been possible to be much fairer to the stock holders?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the advisability of making new electricity stock available for Death Duties at par with a view to eliminating the danger of serious depreciation in the new stock?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

Liquor, Germany (Duty)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that 73,000 proof gallons of whisky and 106,000 proof gallons of gin and other British compounds, of a total value of £296,000, were exported to Germany during 1947; and how much loss to British revenues this represents.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The spirit duty on this liquor, if it had been delivered for home consumption, would have been about £1,500,000.

Totalisators and Pools (Tax)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the amounts received by the Treasury week by week from the greyhound racing totalisators and from football pools, respectively, since the 10 per cent. tax on these forms of betting came into force on 4th January.

Sir S. Cripps: The average weekly receipts from the totalisators and the pools are about £190,000 and £170,000, respectively.

Mr. Teelinģ: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the arrangement for obtaining money from the football pools was brought in on 4th January, or held up?

Sir S. Cripps: It was brought in, and I think it has worked smoothly.

Captain Marsden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us the average figure over a period. Can he say whether the weekly takings are receding?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I cannot do so without notice.

Aviation Spirit (Tax)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent, or proposes to send, to the representations made to him by the Society of British Aircraft Constructors for the abolition of the tax on aviation spirit on the grounds that over 70 per cent. of this spirit used in this country is for work in connection with research on, and construction of, aero-engines.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Mr. Gammans: Will the putting down of this Question remind the Chancellor of the importance of this matter?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Local Authorities' Loans (Interest)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the feeling created amongst local

authorities following his decision to increase the interest rate from 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent.; and will he now reconsider this question and revert to the cheap money policy of his predecessor.

Sir S. Cripps: I have received a number of representations, but there is nothing which I could usefully add to my reply of 20th January to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin).

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Chancellor aware of the fact that with houses costing £1,700, the 3 per cent. rate of interest will make it utterly impossible for local authorities to build houses, and is he further aware that he is putting millions into the pockets of the railway shareholders direct, and it is the local authorities that will have to pay, and make good that money?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Was the Chancellor aware, when he raised this figure, of the extraordinary delays now taking place in housing schemes, as a result of the Government's policy, with a consequent heavy charge upon the local authorities with no rates whatever in return; and, in view of those circumstances, ought there not at least to be some exception made?

Sir S. Cripps: No. All the factors were taken into account.

Mr. Norman Smith: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most of this interest burden could be avoided altogether, if he would use his powers under the Bank of England Act to debar private financial institutions from creating credits out of nothing?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the scandalous retreat from the Dalton cheap money policy, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

American Loan (Sterling Payments)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sterling paid to the Government by importers in exchange for loaned dollars is in a fund separate from internal revenue; and whether consideration will be given to using this to subsidise exports to dollar areas.

Sir S. Cripps: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a statement on the accounting arrangements in reply to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 29th January. As there explained, the sterling paid by importers for dollars derived from the American Loan, reduces Exchequer borrowing from other sources. It would not, therefore, be practicable, even if it were desirable, to use it for financing any form of Government subsidy.

Tourist Travel (Foreign Currency)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the amount of foreign exchange which will be available during the summer to persons wishing to visit France and other Western European countries.

Mr. Bowden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the countries to which tourist travel will be permitted.

Sir S. Cripps: As from the 1st May, tourist travel will be permitted to the following countries: Austria, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland. Travel to Switzerland will be regulated on a monthly quota basis. The detailed arrangements for this will be published within the next few days. The foreign currency to be allowed for tourist travel for the twelve months beginning on 1st May is the equivalent of £35 for adults and £25 for children. The countries named above do not necessarily constitute the final list. It may be possible to add one or two more countries within the next few weeks.

Mr. H. Hynd: In view of the fact that Belgium and Luxemburg are probably the two countries in Western Europe most friendly disposed to this country, can the Chancellor offer any hope that they will be included in the list?

Sir S. Cripps: I certainly could not offer any immediate hope.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Chancellor let us know to which of the other countries he hopes to extend travel facilities, and in particular would he say if there is any

hope of arranging tourist travel to Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Syria and the Lebanon?

Sir S. Cripps: I think it would be highly undesirable to mention possibilities. It would lead to confusion in the minds of everyone.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of the fact that the allowance to travellers is necessarily limited, will they be allowed to earn a few francs by digging potatoes and writing articles for the local Press, and to spend them in the country where they are, earned?

Sir S. Cripps: There is nothing to stop them from earning francs if they are in France.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that this announcement would be even more valuable if the Government would allow a little petrol, so that tourists could take their cars with them?

Prices and Profits (F.B.I. Report)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the report made to him by the Federation of British Industries relating to prices and profits, whether this report meets his objectives of reducing prices and profits, to conform with his policy of freezing wages, and whether he will make a statement.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. My reply to the Federation was published this morning.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Chancellor aware that, with regard to the control of prices, the Federation in this case have taken as little notice of him as they took of his predecessor with regard to the question of the distribution of dividends and would he, therefore, say whether he proposes to take any measures in view of the new features, apart from the Budget, in order to reduce prices and profits?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not prepared to make any further statement.

Gold Sales

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of sterling on Belgian account which has been converted into gold or bard currencies under the existing financial agreement.

Sir S. Cripps: The figures for gross gold sales are published monthly, and I am not prepared to give the details for individual countries.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the Chancellor be prepared to state whether he is satisfied with the limit set on Belgian holdings of sterling, and whether that limit has not in fact been exceeded several times?

Sir S. Cripps: I propose to make a statement after Questions.

British Assets (Foreign Countries)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of compensation received from countries compulsorily acquiring British assets, whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied such compensation has been adequate, and what further representations have been made in the case of Burma.

Sir S. Cripps: In reply to the first and second parts of the Question, no collected information is available, and circumstances differ from country to country. In reply to the third part, no information is available as to private transactions, and no acquisition under any scheme of nationalisation has yet taken place. Discussions have, however, been initiated by the Government of Burma, and His Majesty's Government are following these with close attention.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor give an assurance that any negotiations brought to the notice of the Government in which the backing of the Government is asked for, that backing will be given?

Sir S. Cripps: Provided they are reasonable, certainly.

Albania (Relief Shipments)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the nature and value of the concessions obtained from Albania under His Majesty's Government's present declared policy to secure such concessions as a compensation to unrequited exports.

Sir S. Cripps: As these exports consisted of relief shipments, the point does not arise.

War Damage (Letters to M.P.s)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange for the War Damage Commission to enclose with any letter to a Member of Parliament a copy of the letter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Commission inform me that not all hon. Members want this. They will now add the hon. Member's name to the list of those who do.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Financial Secretary say why he is being so pernickety about this when it has already been granted for the Coal Board and certain other socialised industries?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Certain hon. Members have indicated that they do not want a copy, and that being so it seemed reasonable to save paper by not supplying it to them.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will not the Financial Secretary realise that all Members want copies unless they state that they do not?

Income Tax (Service Widows)

Commander Noble: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why claims are made on Service widows for Income Tax allowances in force during the period when it is not known whether the husband is alive or dead.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Income Tax liability in any particular case has to be related to the facts of the case. Where allowances are given provisionally, it may be necessary to adjust them when the facts are known.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say what is the total amount involved in these cases, because no doubt these allowances were both made and received in good faith?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is quite impossible to put a figure on it.

Furniture Industry (Timber Allocation)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury whether he will increase the allocation of timber to the furniture industry in order to eliminate the prevailing underemployment.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douģlas Jay): I regret that, since most of the timber required by the furniture industry can only be bought for hard currencies, allocations must for the time being continue to be based on the minimum needs of consumers rather than on the capacity of the industry.

Mr. Haire: In view of the imminence of Marshall aid, will not my hon. Friend seriously reconsider this question? Does he appreciate that the demand for furniture is as great as ever and that underemployment in the industry is most wasteful of manpower?

Mr. Jay: I am afraid that we must be extremely cautious at the moment about the use of materials from dollar sources.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will arrange for reasonable leave to be granted to members of the Treasury and Inland Revenue staffs for the purpose of preparing for and taking university examinations.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir, provided public business permits. The grant in appropriate cases of paid leave, or time off, for this purpose is governed by an agreement recently reached by the National Whitley Council of the Civil Service.

Mr. Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend tell me how recently that agreement was reached?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have not the exact date before me, but it was quite recently. I will let my hon. Friend know the exact date later.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. ANDREWS UNIVERSITY (STUDENTS)

Mr. Cook: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the figures of the number of students accepted in medicine, science, engineering and physics in St. Andrews, for the current year.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Cook: On a point of Order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I have asked two Questions this afternoon, this Question and Question No. 46. In both cases, I put them to the Secretary of State for Scotland, only to find this morning that they were to be answered by the Prime Minister and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I would like to know whether this is the usual order of procedure?

Mr. Speaker: That is an old question. A Member may put down a Question to any Minister, but it must be the right Minister. Presumably, the Questions which were altered by the Table were not so addressed. After all, the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot answer every Question. The position is that Questions must be addressed to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Scollan: Are we to understand from your Ruling, Sir, that it is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for university education in St. Andrews, and the Prime Minister who is responsible for university education in Glasgow?

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not a new suggestion that any Minister is responsible for university education in any part of the country?

Mr. Speaker: I was not suggesting anything of the kind. All I know is that Questions are put down and inquiries are made as to who is the right Minister to answer them. I am afraid that I do not know who is responsible for university education, or anything else. That is, and always has been, our procedure.

Following is the answer:

The numbers in the current year were:





Men
Women


Medicine
…
…
53
21


Pure Science
…
…
82
35


Engineering
…
…
54
—

Separate figures for physics are not available.

UNITED KINGDOM AND BELGIUM (TRADE AND PAYMENTS)

Sir S. Cripps: I am glad to be able to announce that after somewhat lengthy and difficult negotiations, complete agreement has now been reached between the Belgian Government and His Majesty's Government in regard to trade and payments arrangements for the period 1st January, 1948, to 30th June, 1949.
The Anglo-Belgian Monetary Agreement, which was signed on 14th November, 1947, will, with one modification, provide the mechanism for payments between the sterling area and the Belgian monetary area; and as regards the United Kingdom, trade programmes have also been agreed for the period in question.
During the past year, the trend of payments has been moving strongly in favour of the Belgian monetary area; partly because the sterling area as a whole was in deficit, and partly because under the arrangements which were to make sterling more freely transferable Belgium had been receiving substantial sums in sterling from countries outside the sterling area with which she had favourable balances of trade.
I am circulating details of the new arrangement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I am sure the House will be interested to know that it has now been agreed that, although trade exchanges should be maintained at the highest possible level, payments between the two monetary areas are to be regulated in such a way that they should be brought into balance as soon as possible, thus avoiding further losses of gold by the United Kingdom. If some temporary transfer of gold is required in the early part of the period, the United Kingdom will have the right, once the desired balance is achieved, and provided that Belgian exports to the United Kingdom are maintained in accordance with the agreed programme, to repurchase later in the period any gold sold after 1st March, 1948.
I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of saving that we are grateful for the cooperation and understanding shown by the Belgian Government during the recent negotiations which augur well for economic co-operation among countries of Western Europe.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Naturally, until we have seen the actual terms of this agreement it is impossible to express an opinion on it, though everybody, I think, will welcome this as a further example of economic co-operation. I should like to ask two questions. First, I would like to know whether the question of tourist travel and the possibility of adding Belgium to the list that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave earlier in Question Time was discussed, and whether any agreement was arrived at. Secondly, when he talks about repurchasing gold, does he mean that the Belgians will allow an expansion of our export trade equivalent to the amount of gold which we have bought?

Sir S. Cripps: Dealing with the question of the repurchase of gold, it means repurchase of the gold with sterling. Naturally, the first part of the question was considered, but in view of the fact that it is necessary, in order to get these balances, to cut Belgium exports at present, there is no opportunity of making any countervailing arrangement as regards tourist travel.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate what quantities are involved as compared with last year, with regard to trade and merchandise?

Sir S. Cripps: Until the Joint Committee which is going to sit to see how to achieve this balance has finished its deliberations, we cannot say precisely, but we hope that it will be well maintained.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate the quantity of gold which he anticipates we shall have to sell to Belgium in the near future?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that would not be possible.

Mr. H. Hynd: In view of what the Chancellor said about the tourist trade, can he not arrange for something to be done on a reciprocal basis?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, we cannot.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I want to ask, first, whether the limit of sterling to be held remains the same and, secondly, whether Belgium will remain in the Second Schedule of the Exchange Control


Order or whether, under this arrangement, it will go back to the Fourth Schedule?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait until he sees the document.

Mr. Scollan: Can the Chancellor tell us whether the sterling balances handed over to Belgium by way of payment came from the United States of America?

Sir S. Cripps: I am very sorry, but I do not quite appreciate what that question means.

Mr. Scollan: The Minister told us that certain payments were made to Belgium for trade, and they were paid in sterling. We had to make these sterling payments. They were tendered to us, obviously, for debts contracted somewhere else. Were they sent by the United States of America or by some other country to which we owed money.

Sir S. Cripps: These were cases where Belgium had been doing business with some other country prepared to buy the goods in sterling. They bought in sterling and the money came through Belgium and back to this country.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Chancellor realise that these bilateral trade agreements made by the Governments of two countries are detrimental to the prosperity of Britain and are impeding her recovery?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that the only alternative to this one was a complete cessation of trade between the two countries.

Following are the details:

ANGLO-BELGIAN PAYMENTS ARRANGEMENTS

Under the terms of the Anglo-Belgian Monetary Agreement which was signed on 14th November, 1947, and which will with one modification, continue to provide the mechanism for payments between the sterling area and the Belgian monetary area during the period from 1st January, 1948, to 30th June, 1949, it was agreed that Belgium should hold sterling within a maximum of £27 million. The inflow of sterling to the National Bank of Belgium was such that this limit was passed and the United

Kingdom was obliged to sell gold to obtain its requirements of Belgian francs. As this state of affairs could not be allowed to continue, the Belgian Government were asked to discuss what measures could be taken to avoid any further drain on our gold reserves, which would not at the same time lead to a dislocation of Anglo-Belgian trade.

It has now been agreed that, although trade exchanges should be maintained at the highest possible level, payments between the two monetary areas should be regulated in such a way that they should be brought into balance as soon as possible, and indeed show some balance in favour of the sterling area over the period of eighteen months ending on 30th June, 1949, thus avoiding further losses of gold by the United Kingdom. It was recognised, however, that although the two Governments would introduce measures to make this policy effective as soon as possible, some further sales of gold by the United Kingdom might be unavoidable in the near future. In that event, the United Kingdom will have the right to repurchase later in the period the gold sold after 1st March, 1948, when payments move in favour of the sterling area and provided that the level of Belgian exports to the United Kingdom is maintained in accordance with the agreed programme. Under this programme, the United Kingdom is to receive increased quantities of steel, and also flex, fertilisers, copper and other essential raw materials and manufactured goods from Belgium and the Belgian Congo.

The Belgian Government have agreed that the Belgian market is ready to admit imports from the sterling area to the greatest possible extent, and it is hoped that sterling area exporters will take full advantage of this. Exports of coal from the United Kingdom to Belgium will be resumed, and there is no doubt that a wide range of United Kingdom exports will find their way to the Belgian market.

In addition, in order to assist in bringing payments into equilibrium, the Belgian Government have agreed that they will, over the period of eighteen months, restrict drastically the acceptance of sterling from countries outside the sterling area.

When payments have been brought into balance and any gold losses have been


recouped to the United Kingdom the two Governments will consider whether there is room for increasing these acceptances of sterling from outside the sterling area, or whether additional imports can be licensed from the Belgian monetary area. For this purpose, and for the general supervision of the new arrangements, an Anglo-Belgian Joint Committee will be set up and will meet regularly. The first meeting will take place this week.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Frederic Walter Harris, esquire, for the Borough of Croydon (North Division).

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government elections and to corrupt and illegal practices, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(i) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any charges in respect of services rendered and expenses incurred for the purposes of or in connection with parliamentary elections by the returning officer;
(ii) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) sums equal to one half or, as respects Northern Ireland, the whole of any expenses under that Act in connection with the registration of electors and the performance of his other duties by the registration officer, and
(b) any remuneration payable under that Act to a deputy appointed by a county court judge in a case where the judge would otherwise have been unable, owing to the necessity of dealing with appeals from registration officers, to transact the business of his court with proper despatch;
(iii) the payment into the Exchequer of sums equal to one half or, as respects Northern Ireland, the whole of any fees or other sums received by a registration officer under that Act, other than sums paid to him in respect of his expenses in the performance of his duties."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Committee read.

Mr. Speaker: Before the House enters upon the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill, hon. Members will have noticed that there is on the Order Paper a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee to which I have given very careful consideration indeed:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill that they have power to make provision whereby the issuing of writs for the return of Members from constituencies in Northern Ireland may be suspended during such times as in the opinion of Parliament free elections are impossible in Northern Ireland.
I am bound either to call the Motion or to rule it out of Order; I have no option in the matter. I must confess, having given


careful consideration to it, that I find that the Instruction, to my mind, is outside the scope of the Bill. It envisages the disfranchisement of a whole community, and that is not the object of this Bill. Therefore, I must rule that the Motion is out of Order. I regard the Motion for the Instruction as a major operation, and not one which can be dealt with by an Amendment to another Bill, and it follows from that that a separate Statute should be enacted to deal with matters of such magnitude.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. I understood you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that the Motion for the Instruction is out of Order because it deals with a matter outside the scope of the Bill. Is it not the case that that is precisely why an Instruction is necessary? if the matter dealt with by the Instruction had been within the Title of the Bill, or, not being within the Title was still within the scope of the Bill, then no Instruction would have been necessary, and, therefore, the Motion for an Instruction would have been out of Order as unnecessary. If it is outside the scope of the Bill, could not the House or the Committee, nevertheless, deal with it under the Bill, providing that the House so instructs the Committee? Is not that what an Instruction is for?

Mr. Speaker: I was careful to put in my last sentence that I thought the matter was of such magnitude that it could only be introduced by a separate Statute and not by an Instruction.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Constituencies and electors.)

3.42 p.m.

The Chairman: I am afraid I must rule that the first Amendment, that in the name of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts)—In page 1, line 11 leave out from "be," to "and, "in line 13, and insert:
the constituencies constituted in pursuance of the Schedule (Determination of Parliamentary Constituencies under System of Proportional Representation) to this Act 
—is out of Order. The first Amendment which I propose to call is that standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and other hon. and right hon. Members.

Mr. Frank Byers: Without wishing to question your Ruling, Major Milner, I am in some difficulty, because Mr. Speaker has only this minute ruled out of Order the Motion for an Instruction to the Committee on the grounds that, if it were given, it would disfranchise a whole community. We hold the view that this Bill is not a Representation of the People Bill at all, and that under this iniquitous electoral system—[Interruption.] Those are the views we hold, and they are entitled to expression. Under this electoral system envisaged in the Bill——

The Chairman: Order! We cannot have a discussion on the question of enfranchisement or disfranchisement. I have ruled the Amendment out of Order because it cuts across the whole principle of this Bill as decided on Second Reading and is so different from the Bill as drawn, as to make the Bill a nullity in the event of a decision being given in favour of the Amendment. One has only to look at the Schedule which deals with this particular matter to see that it would mean that the Boundary Commission would have at once to begin its labours all over again, and that would, in my view, bring about an entirely fresh situation. I theft-fore rule the Amendment out of Order.

Mr. Byers: Without wishing to challenge it, may I say that it is a most important Ruling which you have given, Major Milner, because it means, in fact, that we cannot seek to alter the Bill, if in any way we are going to change the object of the Bill. Would it not be possible for us to put down this Amendment on the Report stage?

The Chairman: That question, of course, is not one for argument now.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page r, line II, to leave out "county and borough."
It is now four weeks since the Second Reading Debate, when, upon the matter raised by this Amendment, charges were made against the Government of a breach of faith, to which contradictory and mutually destructive defences were put forward by the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not sure who had the best of this public disagreement between Ministers. We shall have to wait and see


on which side the Home Secretary gives his casting vote today. I had hoped that, in the interval of four weeks which has now elapsed, the Government might have recognised their error, and might themselves have put down an Amendment such as that now before the Committee.
The Amendment is one of a series designed, in the words of the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, "to maintain university representation and methods of election." This series of Amendments would also fulfil the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that the registration of university graduates should in future be automatic and free. I would point out in passing that, in the Second Reading Debate, the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) was in error when, in speaking of the 1945 Act in relation to this matter of university registration, he said:
Other recommendations from that Speaker's Conference, such as changes in the fee paid by university voters, were also abolished.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1047.]
That was not so. The Act of 1945 did not touch this question of the fees paid for registration at the universities.
On the merits of this issue of university representation, I would say that the case for abolition of university seats is weaker today than at any time in its long history. For a long time past, university education has not been the privilege of a well-to-do minority. It is open to all who have talent, and, in the future, go per cent., at least, of graduates will be drawn from the ranks of the elementary schools. Nor is there anything undemocratic about giving extra representation to the best educated section of our people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is all right, I will make my point. "One man, one vote" is really rather a silly slogan, unless we also attain to "one vote, one value."
Under the redistribution proposals in the Schedule to the Bill, a vote in some of the county constituencies of Wales will be two and a half to three times as valuable as a vote in some of the larger boroughs, because the number of electors there is only one-third of what it is in these larger boroughs. Moreover, I have been told—and hon. Members opposite will, of course, be able to correct me if

I am wrong—that in the conference of the Labour Party, which, I am also told, settles the policy of the party, trade union representation of a special character is given. I understand that a member of the Labour Party may, so to speak, have a vote for his territorial representative at the annual conference of the Labour Party, and may also have a say in choosing a trade union representative, to whom special vocational representation is given. Surely, if it is all right for the Labour Party to give special weight to the trade unions in the formulation of its policy, there is nothing very wrong about this House of Commons giving special representation to the best educated section of our people.
What are the arguments advanced today in favour of the abolition of university representation? The Home Secretary, in moving the Second Reading, could find nothing better to do than to quote a lot of very stale extracts from the Dictionary of National Biography criticising the university representatives of a century or more ago. Those arguments might have been highly relevant to a proposal to abolish university representation in the Reform Bill of 1832, but they have singularly little relevance to the situation today.
The Lord President, who has a better sense of reality than the Home Secretary, directed his charge against the present university representatives, not against those who had passed on a century or more ago; his charge against them was that they were singularly bad attenders —I think "shocking" was the word he used—at this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to hear hon. Members opposite cheering, because that argument is just as feeble in every respect as is the Home Secretary's. Since we do not clock in and out here, as at a factory, that charge can only be based upon Division List records. I confess that I have not troubled to study the records of the university Members. That sort of argument, about attending Divisions in this House, may be all right in the constituencies of Hackney or East Lewisham, although it appears to be less effective in North Croydon.

Sir Arthur Salter: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me——

Mr. Peake: I would rather not give way now; the right hon. Gentleman will have his own chance. That argument does not really cut much ice with hon. Members of this House. We are well aware that we often debate vital issues, such as foreign or economic policy, for days at a time, on Adjournments or other occasions, without a Division, whilst, on other occasions, we may have half a dozen Divisions in a single day on some perfectly trivial Measure, such as the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill. A large proportion of our Divisions, too, are on the question of the Suspension of the to o'clock Rule. That is a matter upon which, I have observed, it is particularly difficuit for independent Members to make up their minds and to cast a vote with genuine conviction. I remember that even Miss Eleanor Rathbone used to get into rather a flapdoodle over this question. Moreover, if university Members vote so much less frequently than others, that proves that they cannot really be a serious threat to the political future of the Socialist Party.
As regards the quality of university representation, which, I think, is a really relevant consideration, I would only say that, during the years that I have been in this House, it has been distinctly above the average. I will name only three university Members, none of whom is at present serving in the House because I do not wish to draw invidious comparisons. The three Members who stand out in my memory are Lord Quickswood, Mr. Edmund Harvey, and Miss Eleanor Rathbone. Lord Quickswood was better known here as Lord Hugh Cecil, and he was admittedly one of the great Parliamentary orators of the present century, and one of the few men who could empty the smoking-room and fill the House.
Mr. Edmund Harvey, whom I defeated in North Leeds in 1929, subsequently passed the test laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland and secured election for the Combined English Universities under the label of an "Independent Progressive." He is a man of exemplary and unexceptionable character. The third university Member I would name—indeed, whom I have already named—is Miss Eleanor Rathbone, who, although she was the bane of my official life as Under-Secretary at the Home Office for nearly five years, had, in the words of the

hon. Gentleman the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), "a whole bagful of noble causes."
The case for the retention of the university representation rests today, however, on grounds which, in my opinion, transcend mere merit; it rests on grounds of honourable agreement and good faith between parties. On the Second Reading, I endeavoured to establish three propositions: first, that a bargain was struck in the Speaker's Conference of 1944—this, though at first denied, is now unchallenged; secondly, that, at the time the bargain was struck, it was binding, not only on the individuals who subscribed to it, but also on the political parties which they claimed to, and in fact did, represent at the Conference. This also went unchallenged by the Lord President in winding up the Debate.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): indicated dissent.

Mr. Peake: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland want to challenge it now?

Mr. Woodburn: I did challenge it.

Mr. Peake: In that case, I shall have to quote from the speeches of Lord PethickLawrence and those of the Lord President of the Council in 1945. Speaking on 17th January, 1945, on an Amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to abolish plural voting moved from the Liberal benches, Lord Pethick-Lawrence said:
But I hope a good many will feel that we, in a sense, were their representatives and that, in making a compromise, half of which we have already secured, they will not wish to take a course which will be contrary to the compromise which we, who to some extent represented them, voluntarily made."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 298.]
If hon. Members say that was qualified by the words, "to some extent," I will now quote the words of the Lord President of the Council at that time, speaking on an Amendment to maintain plural voting in accordance with the Speaker's Conference recommendation. He said:
That is the spirit in which I would appeal to my hon. Friends opposite, not by putting on them any obligation to vote for the Government on this matter, but on the ground that their representatives did very well."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1945; Vol. 407, C. 312.]


Does the right hon. Gentleman still want to challenge the fact that he and his colleagues on the Conference represented the Labour Party there?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I explained in my speech that we were there as representatives and not as delegates. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that by quoting these speeches, which showed that we had to come back and persuade our colleagues to accept the decisions reached at the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Peake: I apologise to the Committee for wasting nearly five minutes of its time. I understood that the Secretary of State for Scotland challenged the use of the word "representatives" and now, after I have given a lot of quotations, he has confirmed it.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Is it alleged that this arrangement was made at the Speaker's Conference, because how is it that other members of the Conference knew nothing about it, as has been said in the House?

Mr. Peake: We have had all this out before. There was an accommodation reached at the Speaker's Conference which has been referred to by almost everybody who has spoken in this matter, time and time again, and I really think it is a waste of the Committee's time to go over that ground. If the hon. Gentleman likes to refer to the speech by the present Lord President of the Council on 17th January, 1945, he will see repeated, time and again throughout that speech, a statement that what was done at the Speaker's Conference was an accommodation, a compromise, and an agreement between the political parties, which he was then trying to persuade his own party to carry out.
It has not been challenged, first, that there was a bargain, an arrangement, and, secondly, that those who made it were acting as representatives of their party. The bargain, of course, could not, and did not, bind every individual member of every party, whether in or outside the House. In the course of the Debates in 1944, 13 hon. Members voted for an Amendment designed to eliminate university representation. They included the present Secretary of State for War and Minister of Pensions, and those individuals

or such few of them as are still with us in the House, have of course safeguarded their position. In the majority in that Division, numbering 152, in favour of retaining the university representation, were the Lord President—I am glad to see he has just come in—the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood)—the present Secretary of State for Scotland, the present Patronage Secretary, the present Minister of Town and Country Planning, the right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers)—whom I think is Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland—and the Minister of National Insurance, who is sitting rather shyly down there. I think the hon. Member for North-West Hull told us that, although he was not a Member of this House, he did vocally dissent at the time from some recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and in that way, no doubt, he also has safeguarded his individual position.
I want now to examine the third proposal I put forward on which I endeavoured to secure the agreement of the House at the Second Reading. That was, that the agreement then made was binding and operative today and was not, as the Lord President argued, automatically terminated upon the dissolution of Parliament in 1945. This alone of the three proposals I advanced is still challenged by the Lord President, on behalf of the Government or most of it because we must except the Secretary of State for Scotland. Let us examine the evidence on this issue, and may I hope that my points will be noted and dealt with by anyone who replies for the Government in this Debate? First, we had Lord Pethick-Lawrence, the leading Socialist representative on the Speaker's Conference, pleading repeatedly on behalf of the Labour Party, of which he was vice-chairman in 1944 and 1945, for the fulfilment in every particular, including university representation, of the agreement which he then described as one which he hoped would survive. Now, nearly four years later, he has given an explanation of his position in the "Evening Standard," which was quoted by the Lord President of the Council in reply to the Second Reading Debate. The Lord President quoted "Londoner" as saying:


Lord Pethick-Lawrence today admitted to me there was a gentlemen's agreement, but says it applied to the Parliament of the time. He said, 'There was never any mention in the Conference, or in any of the pourparlers connected with it, of any understandings as to what the attitude of the parties should be in any future Parliament. '—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1105.]
Of course, there was no mention in the Conference of anything of the kind. I am sure everybody in the Conference would have been horrified if it had been suggested for one moment that any parts of the agreement reached, which had not been carried out within a few months, were automatically going to lapse when a General Election occurred. If there had been any such understanding in the Conference at that time, surely it should have been a specific term of the agreement reached and set out in Mr. Speaker's letter of 22nd May, 1944. Moreover, the Report of the Conference itself, as I will now demonstrate, envisaged legislation in a future Parliament, and rendered such legislation necessary and essential to the fulfilment of the objects of the Conference.
Let me first, however, refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) in the Second Reading Debate. He was another member of the Conference, and at that time was on the executive committee of the Labour Party. He said:
I resent the continual charges of bad faith …against the Labour Party in general and Labour members of the Speaker's Conference in particular. There was certainly no idea of any bargain being made between parties, beyond the fact that we were trying to reach some kind of agreement regarding legislation that might be introduced in the lifetime of the last Parliament"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, C. 904.]
It is a great thing to find one of the hon. Members on the benches opposite who resents these charges of bad faith.
That is in happy and striking contrast to the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who began his speech 24 hours after those charges had been made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) by saying that he had not intended to deal with this point, but since he was a member of the Conference he could speak with some knowledge on what happened; in happy contrast also to the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who

spoke late on the first night of the Debate and ignored these charges altogether. In winding up the Second Reading Debate, the Lord President followed the same lines as the hon. Member for Dagenham, in an endeavour to explain away Lord Pethick-Lawrence's statement of 1944 that the Conference had reached an agreement which it hoped was going to survive. The Lord President said:
I am perfectly certain it never dawned on my noble Friend, it certainly did not dawn on me, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have assured me that it did not dawn on them—how could it dawn upon any of us?—that we were making an agreement in that Parliament … which would commit the Members of a Parliament which was not yet elected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February; Vol. 447, C. 1103, 1104.]
It certainly did dawn, if I am correct, on the Lord President, and upon Lord Pethick-Lawrence—or it should have done, if he took the trouble to read the Report to which his name was appended. I shall not express any opinion as to how much ever does dawn upon the Secretary of State for Scotland—although he signed the Report, also. Both the hon. Member for Dagenham and the Lord President are quite wrong, and all those with whom the Lord President associates himself are quite wrong, in thinking that the agreement related only to legislation which could be carried out in the lifetime of the last Parliament.
What did the Report of the Speaker's Conference itself in terms recommend? It recommended an interim scheme of redistribution by the splitting of the 20 largest constituencies, and it recommended a temporary increase in the present Parliament to 640 in the number of Members of this House. It went on to recommend that thereafter the Boundary Commissioners should prepare a scheme of complete redistribution providing for approximately the same number of Members as the House had in 1944, that is to say, 615. I must now read the twenty-third recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, dated 22nd May. This is on the scheme of complete redistribution to take place after the election:
The reports of the Boundary Commissions should be submitted to the Secretary of State concerned, and the Secretary of State should be required to lay every such report before Parliament together with a draft Order in Council giving effect to any recommendations for redistribution.


The important words are the words of this proviso:
There should, however, be provision that when the Boundary Commissions have made their first general report with respect to the whole of the United Kingdom effect should be given to this first comprehensive scheme by Bill and not by Order in Council.
Is it not as clear as daylight that the Speaker's Conference in 1944 not only contemplated, but demanded, that there should be legislation—not in the then existing Parliament only, but in a future Parliament, in order to implement their recommendations? I do not know why this did not dawn on the Lord President of the Council when, in his capacity as Home Secretary, he first saw the Report of the Speaker's Conference of 1944.
At this stage I think that the Home Secretary, whose integrity and candour, if I may sincerely say so, are appreciated in all quarters of the Committee, could assist the Committee. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill he paid a graceful tribute to the work of Mr. Speaker's Conference, although it would now appear that there is very little relation between the work of the Speaker's Conference and this Bill. The question I should like the Home Secretary to answer—and by his answer I think he would do the Committee a service—is this: Is this Bill, so far as it relates to redistribution, a quite voluntary and spontaneous act on behalf of the Government, or does it represent the fulfilment of an obligation? Which is it? Are the Government free agents to carry or to withdraw this Bill as they please? Or are they under a moral obligation to proceed with it? It is not a very difficult question. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to answer it? I am quite ready to give way. The right hon. Gentleman is very candid with the Committee as a rule. Is he unwilling to answer this question?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Really, the right hon. Gentleman is not learned counsel cross-examining a witness. I shall answer the Debate in due course. The right hon. Gentleman has so little respect for university Members that he declined to give way to one right hon. Member representing a university, and I do not desire to interrupt him.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to answer a very simple—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not."]—a very simple and a very easy question, the answer to which would enable hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to make up their minds on the merits of this issue. I am now going to tell the right hon. Gentleman whether he is morally bound or not to bring in this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why ask him?"] Because I thought it much better that the right hon. Gentleman should make a candid admission to the Committee than that I should have to show him up. There was introduced in the autumn of 1945 the Elections and Jurors Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect it. It made a number of alterations regarding the con. duct of elections. On the Second Reading of that Bill there stood in my name an Amendment, which read as follows:
this House, whilst welcoming the proposal to extend facilities for absent voting"—
to a number of different classes of per-sons—
declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which ignores many of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1945 Vol. 416, C. 455.]
That was the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his Bill, chose to deal with this Amendment in advance of its being moved, and in the course of his speech he made the following statement, which I should like the Committee to note:
The Amendment that has been placed on the Paper alludes to the question of the Speaker's Conference. We have not implemented all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and for this reason, that I announced in the House, on filth October, that I proposed to appoint a Committee, which would consist of Members of the House, the chief agents of the political parties and certain departmental representatives, to examine the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and make a report, on which the appropriate legislation could be passed.
He went on:
It is the intention of His Majesty's Government, when we get the report of the Committee, to base legislation thereon, and to submit it to the House as soon as Parliamentary time can be found thereafter; and we regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit to the House the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 452–3.]

Mr. Stubbs: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Peake: That was on 21st November, 1945—four months after the right hon. Gentleman became Home Secretary. He regarded himself, and the Government regarded themselves, as bound to implement the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Ede: Really, the right hon. Gentleman should have re-read the exact phrase I used. It was that we would implement the findings of the Committee which I then announced my intention of appointing.

Mr. Peake: I really must read it again, to make it perfectly plain.

Mr. Stubbs: And get it right.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman said:
It is the intention of His Majesty's Government, when we get the report of the Committee "—
the right hon. Gentleman announced it was to examine every single recommendation of the Speaker's Conference——

Mr. Ede: And other matters.

Mr. Peake: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
and we regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit … the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations.
The words "these recommendations" refer back to the earlier sentence which I have already read to the House, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke as follows:
I propose to appoint a Committee … to examine the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and make a report. We regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit to the House the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman must give his own explanation of this when he speaks. It is perfectly clear that at that time he was saying the Government felt themselves morally bound to carry out the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—subject, of course, to any technical difficulties which might appear as the result of the work of this committee.
There is another vital piece of evidence. Many of the main technical problems in

the Second Report of the Speaker's Conference, dealing wtih corrupt practices, election expenses and matters of this kind, were referred in November, 1944, by the Lord President of the Council, as he now is, to another committee, also containing the party agents, presided over by Mr. Speaker's Counsel, Sir Cecil Carr. That committee, at the request of the Lord President, made an urgent interim report on a certain part of their terms of reference. That committee then continued in being throughout and after the General Election and did not make its final report until November, 1947. This committee, under Sir Cecil Carr, examined proposals made by the Speaker's Conference and sat for just over three years. Its final report refers in paragraph after paragraph to recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and the methods in detail which the Carr Committee proposed should be adopted in order to carry out these recommendations. If the agreement embodied in the Report of the Conference died an automatic death in the summer of 1945, how was it that this Carr Committee was allowed to go on for three years working out detailed methods of implementing the Conference's recommendation? These labours, be it noted, were all designed with a view to legislation in the present Parliament.
If hon. Members will look at the final report of the Carr Committee, which came out at the end of November, 1947, or only a little over three months ago, they will find two very interesting paragraphs dealing with the question of university elections. Paragraph 26 reads as follows:
University Elections. Our attention has been called to complaints about the lack of secrecy at elections for university constituencies; the voter's name appears on the face of the voting paper, which is open to inspection by the candidates and their representatives.
Accordingly, certain recommendations are made. In paragraph 27 it is stated:
The Speaker's Conference recommended … that every person who has received or receives a degree … shall be automatically registered and that no fees shall be charged for registration expenses.
The committee, in its report, then deals with how that matter should be handled. This is very curious to me because one of the 15 Members of the Carr Committee, which produced a unanimous report, was


the chief agent of the Labour Party, a certain Mr. Shepherd, if I am not mistaken.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): A certain Lord Shepherd now.

Mr. Peake: Lord Shepherd, I beg his pardon. At any rate, whether noble or otherwise, this gentleman was, I think, chief agent at the time of the Labour party—and no doubt, in that capacity, was in close daily touch with the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Morrison: I would not say daily.

Mr. Peake: Well, very frequently at any rate. Does it not seem to the Committee a shame that Lord Shepherd should have been allowed to go on for two and a half years after the Election of 1945, cudgelling his brains about this question of university representation, and how it should be properly dealt with, when the Lord President had killed the thing in June, 1945?
Another question I would like to ask is why we had to wait nearly three years for the claim that the dissolution of Parliament in 1945 terminated the agreement. Why was not the Carr Committee reappointed with new terms of reference? Why was it allowed to go on examining these recommendations of the Speaker's Conference with a view to their implementation? Why, also, did the Lord 'Chancellor, in another place, lead us to believe that this Bill would contain the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference? During the Debate on the King's Speech hi October of last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) asked the Prime Minister what was the meaning of the phrase in the King's Speech:
You will be asked to approve a Measure to reform the franchise and electoral procedure and to give appropriate effect to recommendations of the Commisisons appointed -to consider the distribution of Parliamentary seats.
I wish to know why the Prime Minister said in his reply:
The sight hon. Gentleman raised some points with regard to the Redistribution of Seats Bill. That is brought forward from the Speaker's Conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st, October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 633.]
Why did the Prime Minister call this Measure the Redistribution of Seats Bill?

It deals with a far wider scope than that. Moreover, why did he say it was brought forward from the Speaker's Conference if there is no longer any connection between what the Speaker's Conference did in 1944 and the Bill which right hon. and hon. Members have now placed before the House?
Finally, we have the absolutely devastating admission—I am almost glad he has gone out—of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. He took a definite view on the Second Reading, that the agreement reached in 1944 continued operative in 1946, at which time the naughty Tories broke it by putting up a candidate for one of the university seats who had the good fortune to go and get elected. The Secretary of State for Scotland not only says the agreement was still binding, hut he imports into the agreement a secret clause that no Conservative shall be elected for universities in the future. I am very surprised that my hon. Friend the senior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) should have put his signature in some way to a secret clause by which universities in the future should return only Liberals, Progressives, Socialists or Communists.
The claim that the Dissolution of Parliament in 1945 put an end to the agreement, and absolved the Government from any obligation to carry it out, cannot for one moment be sustained. The whole of the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. The part of the agreement which was to the advantage of the Socialist Party had already been fulfilled. The question may be put, how long, if this agreement continued to bind parties, as it clearly did after the Election, was it to last? The Lord President interrupted me in the Second Reading Debate and asked whether it was to last for ever. Of course, an agreement can always be dissolved by mutual agreement between the parties. There has been no mutual agreement about this matter.
4.30 p.m.
Apart from that, in my opinion there are two essential pre-requisites of an honourable discharge from the obligations then incurred. First and foremost, a mandate should have been obtained from the electors in 1945 to abolish university representation. So far as I know, not a single word was said on behalf of the


Labour Party at the 1945 General Election to give anybody the slightest inkling that they intended to abolish university representation. Were not the voters in 1945 entitled to assume that the Labour Party policy on university representation had been expressed by the Labour Party representatives on the Speaker's Conference 12 months before? They were given no indication that Labour policy had changed between May, 1944, and June, 1945. Surely, before bringing in a change of this description some mandate from the electors should have been sought and obtained?
The second condition of honourable discharge from these obligations would have been to follow what is now well-established custom, and to have assembled an all-party conference to discuss alterations in the electoral law. In winding up the Second Reading Debate the Lord President relied on an exception which he said was to be found in the conduct of Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, in 1928 when introducing the so-called "flapper vote." That example is of very little value to the Lord President, because every year, from 1924 onwards, on Private Members' days, the Labour Party brought in Bills to provide universal adult franchise. Those Bills received the support, not only of Socialist Members but of Liberal and Conservative Members in the Lobbies. Therefore, in adopting these proposals in 1928 Mr. Baldwin was assured in advance of all party support for his policy, apart from a handful of diehards on his own side of the House. A conference at that time was quite unnecessary.
Where does responsibility lie for this proposed outrage on the elementary decencies of our political and public life? I do not think that even hon. Members who were new to the House of Commons in 1945 can disclaim all responsibility for fulfilling an obligation to which their party is so deeply committed. After all, when one inherits one's father's estate, and with it the means and the power to discharge his unpaid tailor's bill, one cannot repudiate liability on the ground that one does not care for the pattern of the suit. That is what hon. Members opposite are seeking to do in this matter of university representation. But the primary responsibility lies in a very special degree on Members of His Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Lord President were all Members of the

War Cabinet which accepted these recommendations as a whole. Practically every Minister who holds an important office today held office in the Coalition Administration—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Defence, and many others. In 1944 many of them voted, as I have shown, for the retention of university representation.
It is difficult to find Parliamentary words in which to express my feelings upon this matter, or to describe my horror at the act of petty party spite and perfidy to which former colleagues in the wartime Coalition are now prepared to put their hands. Seldom in peacetime have we faced such danger and difficulty as confront us now. All over Europe democratic Governments are falling, and free peoples are being enslaved.

Mr. Gallacher: Baloney.

Mr. Peake: The lamps of learning and of liberty, relit in 1945, are being extinguished once more. Yet this is the time chosen by Ministers to disfranchise our universities, to repudiate their personal obligations, and to depart from the traditions of good faith and fair play between parties, which are the essential foundations of our public life. I ask them, even at this eleventh hour, to think again.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I do not want to follow the arguments of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), because I am sure they will be dealt with adequately by the Government Front Bench; moreover, they were gone over fairly extensively during Second Reading.
I want, briefly, to put a point of view which has not so far been put clearly. I do so as a member of what is probably the premier university, namely, the University of Cambridge. That, of course, might be questioned, but at least it is a university second to none. On all grounds I support the abolition of university representation; but at the same time I fully realise its importance. While I support its abolition, I submit that it can at the same time be retained. That may sound paradoxical, but I hope in a few words to explain exactly how it can be done. Not only can the university contribution be retained, but its value can,


in the way I suggest, be considerably enhanced.
In 1604, James I, Sir Robert Cecil, then Chancellor of Cambridge University, and Sir Edward Coke, a former Speaker, made a crucial mistake in their proposal for university representation. Instead of including the university representatives in the ranks of the House of Commons, the proper course would have been to bring them within the Upper Chamber. I am well aware that for a variety of reasons, that probably would not have been practical at that time. In those days, the Upper Chamber was very much a closed shop, a dosed corporation, and consisted of landed interests, the aristocracy, the Church, and very little else. It is probably right to say that James I who was a good patron of learning, wanted to bring the university interest and voice, as well as the voice of the Church—because the university voice was virtually that of the Church—into the Lower House and so to broaden it.
I appreciate the motives which led them to take this course. But the whole history of this representation would, in many ways, have been very much better had the university representatives been brought into the Upper Chamber. After all, the Lower House, the House of Commons, has, all the way through its history, for over boo years, been based essentially on the territorial conception. We know that the franchise was extremely restricted early on; we know that there were pocket boroughs, rotten boroughs, and the rest. But in any case nominally, the House of Commons was not a House of particular interests; it was based on a territorial aspect, and not the aspect of interests.
The House of Lords has, however, always been essentially a Chamber where particular interests have been located, and it is for that reason that I wish the decision of James I had been different in 1604. May I say, in passing, that if these representatives of the universities had been located in the House of Lords, instead of the House of Commons, then many of the tragic happenings which were referred to on the Second Reading Debate—when most distinguished figures who represented universities were sometimes thrown out rather unceremoniously —would not have happened. I refer to Sir Isaac Newton, Peel, Palmerston and

Gladstone, all of whose periods of representation came to an untimely end. Had they been put into the House of Lords on a different basis they would not have reached that unhappy consummation——

Mr. McKie: They were all Members for over 10 years.

Mr. Chamberlain: That may be, but because they took a certain line, in the main in ecclesiastical matters, they were unceremoniously bundled out. If they had been brought into the House of Lords as representing the universities, they would not have been at the mercy of the kind of votes which sustained them.
On 16th February, the Leader of the Opposition said:
There are … many famous men who have come to this House from the universities, many of them as independent Members able to speak with freedom on a lot of topics such as, for example, divorce and gambling, which might prove embarrassing to what are -ailed territorial Members.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February. 1948; Vol. 447, c. 871.]
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the value of these Members, and the fact that they have been honourable and famous men, but I rather question his statement as to their being able to speak with freedom on a lot of topics. Actually, the course of history has shown that they were under considerable restraints, certainly far more in by-gone days than they would be today. I am so far only dealing with the historical point that a mistake was made in 1604.
The proposal which I wish to make today, and which I do not suppose for a moment can be accepted at once by the Government, is that the true interests of the universities might find a more proper and appropriate place in a reformed Second Chamber, alongside many other interests, such as the Church and other ecclesiastical bodies, learned societies, trade unions, and organisations of employers—distinct interests. It is not appropriate, I know, in this Debate, to go fully into the matter of the reform of the Second Chamber, but I am trying to make it clear that while I believe that university Members should be abolished from the Lower Chamber, they could find a more appropriate place in a reformed Second Chamber. That Chamber would have restricted powers, of course, but it would be better from


every point of view that they should be in that Chamber, perhaps nominated by the Senates of the universities, and not be subject, in the ordinary way, to election by postal ballot and the rest. They should be real nominees of the universities, and should be regarded as the voices of those universities. By that means there would be true university representation. Members of this House who are Members of the universities, and some of whom gave elaborate obituary notices of themselves on the Second Reading, might perhaps take heart from the suggestion that if they go out of here they may usefully go to another place——

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: Why kick them upstairs?

Sir Alan Herbert: Is the proposal of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) that the present university Members should be life Members of the House of Lords? If so, they cannot be quite so bad as we have heard.

Mr. Chamberlain: I have been making it clear that I greatly value the contributions which university Members have made throughout the ages, including those who represent the universities at present —I make no invidious comparisons. The exact form of nomination, whether it for life, for five years, for the term of Parliament, or longer, would be a matter for negotiation. I do not think that the details are particularly relevant to the essential principle I am putting forward. I put it forward not because I expect the Government to accept it today, but because I think it is a reasonable proposition. I greatly value the representation of my own and other universities, but I believe that it should find its appropriate and proper medium in a reformed Second Chamber.

Mr. Pickthorn: Perhaps I may be permitted to begin by referring to two things which have been said already this afternoon. To take them in inverse order: first, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain): I was a little surprised, without in the least desiring to criticise the Chair which, as you know, Major Milner, is the last thing in the world I should ever do, that his

suggestion was within the scope of the Bill. But whether or not that is so, I do hope that nobody will think, whether or not there ought to be university nominees in the House of Lords, that that has any relevance to what we are debating here today, which is the function which university Members can and should perform by sitting here. I do not dare to boast of all the university Members, least of all of myself, adequate performance of functions, and I do not think that many Members in this House would dare boast similarly for themselves, for that matte'. We are considering the function which university Members should perform in this House, and not the functions which could be performed by their sitting in the House of Lords, which could not be the same, at least not more than to a very partial extent. Nor do I understand the Jacobin democrats opposite who wish to cut down the universities from representation in Parliament for corporations of the total graduate population to representation of the resident teachers in each particular university.
There is one other thing which has been said this afternoon, which, also, I cannot understand—and I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here, although I make no complaint about that; a nice cup of tea now and then does no man any harm—the argument, in which he indulged rather coyly, the invitations from this side he resisted for some time but, in the end, like the lady protesting almost too much, he did consent to engage in a duologue with my right hon. Friend. When he did so, I was very much surprised by his argument, and by the—so far as they were intelligible and not merely inchoate—noises behind him, which appeared to confirm the argument. What he argued was that when he spoke—I think it was on 21st November, 1945, but I do not tie myself to the date—about the moral duty of implementing "these recommendations," he meant not all the recommendations "of the Speaker's Conference hut, he argued, and the noises behind him appeared to argue, the recommendations of the Committee he appointed that day.
That seemed to me a very extraordinary argument, and the most extraordinary of all the extraordinary tergiversations to which occupants of the Treasury bench have been forced during this argument. They have performed the most miraculous


feat of rotating simultaneously on their vertical axis and their horizontal axis, and in both directions at once. This was the oddest performance of the lot. I ask the Lord President of the Council to tell us: did the Home Secretary really mean the Government to be morally bound to introduce a Bill legislating, accepting the duty to implement legislatively, the recommendations of the Committee which he only that morning appointed? That is the most extraordinary abdication of government in the history of mankind, but that was the argument which the Home Secretary ventured—I think that is a fair word. "Dared" might be regarded as controversial and I wish today not to be controversial. [Laughter.] No, so far I have been, I think, not controversial, at any rate not contentious. That was the argument which the Home Secretary ventured to put before this Committee.
I now come to the more general argument which I wish to submit. I shall try to do so without being intolerably long or scandalously repetitious. I hope, however, that the Committee may think it right to give me a certain latitude. It has always been usual that the accused man in the dock should be allowed to say something in his own defence and that he should be given rather more freedom than any other person addressing the court. In those civilised days when we had responsible Government in this country, and unsuccessful politicians got their heads cut off, it was usual to allow them to address some remarks to their fellow citizens from the scaffold. Now that everything, or almost everything, in the way of procedure and so on is streamlined, although there are still, for all the streamlining we have done, a certain number of anomalies and vestigial excrescences, like, for example, a Lord President of the Council. But we have streamlined a good long way. This House, which is too fond of referring to itself as the High Court of Parliament, is streamlined perhaps to the point where the dock of the accused and the scaffold for the victim have become one and the same thing. I hope that I may claim both privileges on this occasion.
I have some slight title to speak rather lengthily, in that I was a Member of the Speaker's Conference. It is not usual—

[Interruption.] If this is to be the end of University Members I am entitled to proceed without too much interruption or "chy-iking." I was a Member of the Speaker's Conference and I am aware of pretty well everything that happened there. The arguments for and against University representation were not, any of them I think, produced there, but those arguments are well known. They can be infinitely elaborated and illustrated. There are not very many. There are two arguments against it. One is that it offends against the strict arithmetic principle of the representative microcosm, and the other is that one does not like particular University Members at the time, or University Members in general in recent history. Those are the only two arguments against it. There are half a dozen arguments in favour of it, and I wish to say a word about one or two of those.
I think that the two which have been least stressed and which, therefore, I hope I may be forgiven for saying something about, are, first of all, the argument from the representation of overseas graduates. I would ask hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to believe that this is a matter of very great importance. If we take what we may regard as a pedantically arithmocratic view—but everybody agrees that there are exceptions to it for all sorts of reasons and the constitution of even the Labour Party Conference admits great exceptions to it—there are great exceptions to it. And it is obviously, subject to considerations of time. If we take the arithmetic view, we must, of course, go in for annual Parliaments, as the old Chartists did, because the relations between the House of Commons and the electorate may shift considerably in even two years.
I do not think that anyone really sticks to the strict arithmocratic principle. If we do not, there is a very strong argument for university seats, from the overseas end. A very high proportion of those Britons who serve their country overseas, whether directly in the public service or in private employ or in personal professions, are university graduates. That is of extreme value, as I can testify, and could justify with instances except that it might seem rather boastful and in some cases might be indiscreet, with important instances to stress the extreme value of


the fact that there is that channel, in this institution, of communications with Whitehall and Westminster. It is not good enough to say that they can communicate with the Member of Parliament for Chatharm, or Wigan or wherever they happened to live when they were boys, or wherever their parents live, or wherever they intend to retire to. That is not the same thing.
One advantage of the university Member is that he can be personally known to a very high proportion of his constituents. I think I dare boast that I am personally known to a higher proportion of my constituents than is anyone else in this place. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] I think it is mathematically demonstrable. One can hardly live in a university town and be an active teacher, getting about the place, for 37 years, without being known indirectly to, one might almost say, almost all the graduates who live at the end of those 37 years, and directly at least to a very large proportion of them. There is nothing personally boastful about that statement, because it is in the nature of the case. Even university graduates overseas who may not personally know a university member will probably know the sort of chap he is through knowing somebody who knows him or having some acquaintance in his college, or what not. It provides a means of confidential communication running both ways which, I am sure if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were candid, they would admit has been of very great public service indeed, which service it will be very difficult to replace. Incidentally, I would say this about them: almost as often as not, I had almost said more often than not, those of my constituents who have written to me from overseas and asked me, for example, to take up matters with Government Departments—I think I am right in saying "more often than not," although obviously I have not got any statistics—have been anxious about the interests of the local population rather than about any personal or professional interest of their own. That ought to be said to their credit, and I think it is also to the credit of the institution of university representation.
5.0 p.m.
The next of the familiar half-dozen arguments in favour of university representation which in my judgment has so

far not been very much stressed is the necessity for what is called academic freedom. Academic freedom is very difficult to define. Any freedom is, as we all know; but I think we all know pretty well what we mean by it. As the poet Housman said on one occasion, his dog was not very good at defining the difference between a rat and an elephant but he knew a rat when he smelled one. Similarly, I think we know roughly what we mean by academic freedom. If not, I am willing to debate it at length with anyone at any stage.
This is the point which I wish to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite and particularly to the Treasury Bench: First, if the universities in this country compare not unfavourably with the universities in any other country, and I do not think that anyone would deny that our universities compare not unfavourably with those of any other country from any point of view, what are the reasons? No doubt they are numerous, but one of them certainly is that the English university tends to go, on being a corporation to which all the graduates are conscious of loyalty, and in. which they are all conscious of membership, throughout their lives. And that is done without the sort of ballyhoo and, over-organisation which sometimes, happens in many American universities. And, mark this, it is done without any attempt by the graduates who have gone away from the university to control the academic management of the universities, which is one of the great dangers, as anyone with experience of the United States knows, to educational life in the United. States.
That is one of the factors in the virtues of English universities. What are the factors that make that possible? I do not say for a moment that the existence of university seats is the whole story, but it is an important factor in the matter. It means that graduates go on periodically receiving letters from their Members and from candidates, and in that and other Parliamentary ways go on being reminded of and being conscious of a corporation to which they belong and, therefore, go on communicating with the universities and being communicated with; and go on, though not so much or as efficiently as I would wish, trying to take some trouble to keep their addresses up to date. So, although they are scattered all over the world, the university has a reality and


unity about it. There is not the least doubt that one of the factors in that is university representation in this House, and it would be a great pity if that should be lost.
I cannot myself subscribe to the view which was taken by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said:
I take rather a different view of the university from those who have spoken in defence of university representation here. To me, what matters about universities is that, at any given moment, there are a lot of young people there, with a few teachers When one collects a number of ancient graduates scattered throughout the country—a professor here, a clergyman there, a stockbroker or a Member of Parliament—and say that these classes, somehow or other, form a separate and real community … seems to me to be total nonsense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447. c 937–8.]
I have left out of that passage the word "not" because I am sure it was a misprint. I am pretty sure that I have read what the right hon. Gentleman said. That seems to me to be an extraordinary perversity of logic, which almost begins to explain the cheap money policy. The only thing that matters about universities, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is the young men there, until the moment at which they graduate. At that moment they become ancient graduates scattered throughout the country—a professor here, a stockbroker there, and so forth.
The truth is that university constituents are considerably younger in average age than those of any other constituency. That will not always be so but it will be so for at least our lifetime. It must be so when we have the number of the population increasing, so that the number graduating in the last 20 years is higher than that in the previous 20 years. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known, one thing a professor cannot be is aged; he has to retire when he is 65, unlike an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who can go on being an ex-Chancellor or the Exchequer for quite a long time, if the Lord Almightly permits him. In my submission, that is a false view of the university. There is a real corporate entity about a university in which one factor is university representation.
I have another thing to say about the right hon. Gentleman: I am sorry he is

not here. In his speech during the Second Reading Debate on this Bill he said:
No one will accuse me of not having done something for the universities …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February. 1948; Vol. 447, c 937.]
Because as Chancellor of the Exchequer he had authorised grants from the Treasury, etc. I think it is pretty dangerous when an individual person says, "No one can accuse me of having done nothing for the universities," ballet dancers, or anything else for which public money has been handed out. That seems to me to be a dangerous kind of argument.
I invite the attention of the Committee to this point: If it has become necessary for the Treasury to make considerable grants to the universities, why is that? It is because of the change which, for all I wish to say for the purpose of this argument I am prepared to describe as the wholly beneficial change, in social and economic circumstances in the last 20 or 3o years, which has, in view of the present extreme Government interference with everything by legislation delegated legislation and legislation by suggestion, one might almost say, reduced the capital of the universities effectively or potentially to nil, and there is no chance of their being re-endowed, a possibility which was very great only a comparatively few years ago. Eight, nine or 10 years ago they were still receiving large endowments. That also has been removed by this process of which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are a part, or the process is a part of them, I do not know which.
Therefore, when it is said that there has been "generosity" to the universities in this matter, it is important to remember the other side of the case. It is universally agreed that if the normal rule of,
Who pays the piper calls the tune
is exercised at all excessively in regard to the universities, the effect is bound to be—and I have never heard anyone of any point of view in politics deny this—intellectually and scientifically bad in the long run, and indeed, in a pretty short long run. I think that that is generally agreed.
It is now more than ever important that universities should have two channels of communication with Whitehall and Westminster. They have one, as any formed


body of men has. Their vice-chancellors, hebdomadal councils, etc., can come to London or write to London, negotiate with Ministers, top civil servants, the University Grants Committee, etc. That is a beneficent channel of communication, and, for all my argument needs, is exercised on both sides with perfect wisdom and perfect virtue. But if that becomes the only channel of communication, then the danger to academic independence will be overwhelmingly great.
Even if the universities have not done a thing, actively and positively, for the relations between the universities on the one hand, and Whitehall and Westminster on the other, if all of us have not done a thing, the mere fact of our existence has acted as a ventilation and a safeguard to the other channel of communication and if you abolish this institution, I believe you cannot replace it. I hope that that argument is plain. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think it is merely partisan, but will take it seriously. There is much else I should like to say in general defence of the university seats. At the risk of wearying the Committee—I am bound to admit that today I am unscrupulous about that —there are a good many things I feel bound to say on this occasion.
I want to come to the so-called bargain, and to this point of whether there was a bargain, and whether the bargain is being kept. I really' do not think that there can be any doubt, after listening to my right hon. Friend's speech today, or to his speech on Second Reading, certainly anyone who has studied both those speeches cannot doubt it, that there is a conclusive proof that there was a bargain, an agreement, an accommodation, or call it what you will, to which both great parties were bound. I do not think that there really can be any doubt about that at all. I do not think that any candid mind—please note both words, "candid" and "mind "—leaving out prejudices and even hearts, can really doubt that he demonstrated that this agreement was intended to last for more than six months, or a year—until a new Parliament had been elected. I think that the case can be put even higher than he has put it. I beg hon. Members opposite to listen to me on this point. A constitution is the mode in which a State is

organised; a body of fundamental principles according to which the State is governed. I know that, because I found it in the dictionary.
Hon. Members opposite are anxious to be social democrats. They are anxious that we should not confuse them with some of the supporters whose votes they had at the last election, and with the two whose votes they still have in this House of Commons. I should be the last to complain of that. If they are anxious to be constitutional, I ask them to consider what is the constitution of this country. It almost boils down to this: that anyone who can get 51 per cent. of the House of Commons on his side, at any given moment, can do anything he pleases, the only limit being that the House of Lords may hold it up for a few months, if it is something legislative, and secondly that in a barely conceivable set of circumstances the Crown might think it right to risk its very existence by refusing the desire of the majority, and trusting to get an alternative majority.
I do not think that anyone will question me so far as I have gone. I have forgotten what is exactly the proportion of hon. Members opposite in this House. I think it is 65 per cent., on receiving 47 per cent. of the votes at the last General Election. What is the very last thing with which a House of Commons, so near to the point of extreme uncontrolled omnipotence, can interfere with without avowing itself unconstitutional in any sense of the word "constitutional" which was current before 1945? That this majority in this House should be used for the purpose of altering the constitution of this House of Commons, is the most extreme of all exercises of constitutional power. It is contrary to all precedent and habit that this House should ever arrange for alterations to its constitution, except after great, and I think always successful, efforts have been made to get a wide degree of agreement between the main parties beforehand. [Interruprtion.] 1832 is quite a different thing. If it is the "flapper" vote, that, I think, was sufficiently dealt with by my right hon. Friend from the Front Opposition Bench. This is a very extreme thing to do. Therefore, I say that not only was there a bargain or accommodation at the Speaker's Conference, but that there was something more than a bargain; this is much more


nearly an Original Compact, on which everything legal and constitutional depends: that this House should not itself arrange for a change of its own constitution by a transitory majority.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council must be very familiar with the things he has said on this point. I can give him the references if he likes. Not only was this a sort of compact, but it was more than a compact—something almost amounting to the Original Compact of Locke. Why on earth did the Conservative majority make any concessions at all? The Lord President of the Council said that he could not imagine how, unless it was for the British genius for compromise and the desire for compromise at the Speaker's Conference, how the Conservatives had come to do certain things, including adding six million votes to the municipal franchise. If the intention was all along that whoever has a majority at the next election does exactly what he chooses about the composition of the House of Commons, why did not whoever had a last majority then do what suited them—that was us?
There is really no room for argument; if there were, the argument of my, right hon. Friend was unanswerable. But there is really nothing to argue about; the whole nature and essence of the Speaker's Conference was that there should be some degree of permanence; it has no meaning whatever without that. Hon. Members who light-mindedly, without taking the trouble to look into it doubt that, are making quite certain of disaster, apart from more important entities, to their own party. You cannot for long get away with intellectual nonsense, or with a plain and obvious neglect of elementary fairness. There is not the least doubt about it that the whole nature of the Speaker's Conference was such as I have indicated. I have one other argument on this point, and then I have a sentence or two more before I sit down. My last argument is this. I should like the Lord President of the Council to listen to me. If the Speaker's Conference was intended to last only six, 12 or 18 months, how long is the present Conference about the relation between the two Houses intended to last? Is that also intended to last only to the next General

Election? I am not going into that question, Major Milner. I am merely asking how long it will last, because that question blows away the whole argument we have had from the Treasury Bench.
There is something general to be said finally. I would not be sentimental about this; and certainly I would not disavow personal concern in the matter, as many of my colleagues have done, no doubt quite honestly. I have extreme personal concern in the matter. [Interruption.] Certainly, I have. Why not? I would not be sentimental about it. Let hon. Members pause and consider what we at this moment owe to the universities in the quite recent past. The Home Secretary has spoken about Limehouse and the present smallness of its population being due to enemy action. The smallness of the university population is very largely due to enemy action. The percentage of deaths among university graduates is very much higher than among the general population. That makes a perceptible difference to our numbers. That is one of the things fair to remember about the last two wars.
Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are rightly proud of what they have done to make it easier for scholars to go to the universities, to do well there, and to do all the better afterwards. I entirely agree with that. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying this: I think I am probably the first university Member who owes his education wholly to scholarship, and perhaps I may be permitted a moment of sentimental regret when I see that I may be the last as well as the first. Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not nearly sufficiently grateful to the universities and colleges for what they have done in that matter in the past. When some courtier came to Henry VIII and suggested that, having got all he could get out of the church, he should take another pocketful of capital out of the universities, he appointed a commission to go into the matter, and when they came with their report, he said that he was amazed that so many men were decently maintained and usefully occupied at so low a cost, and he refused to attack the universities. The resident teacher members of the universities have never been at all well to do even by professional standards. They have always done, both in their


personal and in their corporate capacity, all that they could for the encouragement of scholarship among those whose parents were not well endowed, and to ensure help to them. About that there is not the very least doubt.
Do not let us throw away this safeguard for academic freedom. It is a great safeguard of academic freedom. One of the drawbacks of treating the withholding labour as the strongest of all economic and political forces—one of the drawbacks to that habit of mind is that it acts in a disgenic manner. If academic liberty were seriously infringed, it would not be so obviously inconvenient in three days' time as if all the dustmen went off, or all the liftmen, or all the furnacemen. That is true, but in a short period, whether we were conscious of it or not, we should be extremely inconvenienced. If we must throw away this safeguard of academic freedom, do not let us pretend that we do it because it is intolerable on arithmocratic grounds. That can be shown to be a piece of hypocrisy. And do not let us say that it is done because the universities in fact at the last General Election tended to swing the opposite way to the general population and because most university members are not such as would be nominated by Transport House. That is not really a respectable argument, and I hope that it will not be used any more.
Do not let us pretend this is not a blow at learning and the learned professions, because it is. We had the argument, when talking about the health service from two hon. Members and I think from one right hon. Gentleman opposite, that of course medical men could not be expected to have valuable opinions about politics because they were so busy being medical men they had not the time for politics. If we are now to be told that graduates in general are not such that the community ought to make sure of their having a small representation—I do not say that 12 is the right number—chosen by themselves—I have forgotten how many miners there are in the country and how many graduates; there are more miners than graduates but not so very many more; someone told me there were 50 miners' Members appointed directly by miners' lodges and another 5o indirectly; assume that that is an exaggeration and that the total is 6o or 7o—is it too much to say that graduates, who do not happen to be

conveniently or properly organisable on a trade union basis and do not happen all to live together and are scattered about—to say that it is desirable in the interests of the community that in this Chamber which has become so extremely sovereign over all our activities, that they should have some representation here? To say that that cannot be accepted clearly deals a blow at learning and the learned professions.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There have been two aspects of the Debate which has taken place. One concerns the breach of faith alleged against His Majesty's Government and against the Labour Party. The other-concerns the merits of the question which is before us, namely, the wisdom or otherwise of university representation. I aril glad that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) developed the last argument, because it had not, up to that point, had a great deal of consideration in this Debate, and I do not know that it was adequately expressed on Second Reading. It is, of course, the real issue which is before the House, although it is perfectly legitimate to argue, if it is believed, that the Government had committed a breach of faith.
I want to say at once that I entirely dissent from that allegation and I would say that if an allegation of breach of faith is made it is for those who allege it to prove it. I should be willing to submit to any impartial body that the Opposition had not proved their case that the Government are guilty of a breach of faith or that the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament or the proceedings of the last Government in any way bind the present House of Commons. They have not proved their case in the least, and I do not admit it for one moment.

Mr. Piekthorn: I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen who have the power are being very generous. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to be uncandid, but it has never been asserted here that it bound the House of Commons. What has been asserted is that it bound the Ministers and party opposite.

Mr. Morrison: If it is argued by the hon. Gentleman that if the House of Commons is free, but the party sitting on this


side is not, it means that the party leaders on this side have got to dictate to the newly elected Members of the House of Commons how they hall conduct their business irrespective of their wishes.

Mr. Pickthorn: It never occurred to them before.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: It has not and it ought not to occur that a university Member should advance a constitutional doctrine which is utterly destructive of Parliamentary rights. This is a fundamental right.
I wish to deny that party leaders in the last Parliament or the Speaker's Conference, as far as I know, not having been a member of it, sought or intended to fetter their own or anyone else's discretion in the new Parliament. Further, I will advance this argument, that in any case they had no right to do so, because if there is anything which stands out in our Constitution it is that the Parliament of the day has the right to act within the proper limits of the Constitution. If party leaders on this side were to have gone to my hon. Friends in this new Parliament—a very different Parliament and a very different Labour Party—and had said to them, "We are sorry but you cannot do these things because we entered into certain undertakings with the last Government and with the party leaders in the last Parliament," I could tell hon. Members on the other side what my hon. Friends would have said to us. I can assure them it would not have come off, and I would say that my hon. Friends would have been absolutely right to resent and resist any such argument.
I do not rest the Government's case on that point alone. I absolutely and flatly deny that there were any undertakings or commitments as far as the Labour Party leaders in the last Parliament, or as far as the Labour Party Ministers in the War Coalition Government, were concerned. I repeat, there were no commitments whatever, and no restriction either on our freedom to consider the merits of each case in the light of the circumstances as they occurred, or on what our point of view would be in this Parliament. What we did in the last Government was to reach accommodations as to what could be done in that Parliament in so far as legislation

was necessary and expedient. We arrived at that accommodation, and on the Floor of this House we voted for the implementation of those conclusions by that Government. I myself stood at this Box and resisted more than one Amendment to two Bills moved by my hon. Friends from the Opposition side of the House because I took the view—naturally—that the Government of which I was a Member had come to a decision, and I must uphold their point of view in the House of Commons.
Moreover, the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference naturally influenced the Government and the party leaders of the day, even though we were free to disagree with those conclusions had we so wished. They were discussions as to what should be done by that Parliament and by that Government. Not the smallest evidence of any substance has been produced to show that either in the Speaker's Conference, in the attitude of the Government, or in the proceedings of Parliament was there any commitment to the view that when we came to the new Parliament we should be bound by all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), in somewhat extravagant language at times, accused us of a breach of faith. He argued that there was a bargain which was binding on the parties, lip to that point there is some truth in that, but when he went on to say that the bargain is operative today I absolutely, flatly and categorically deny it, and I say he has not proved it. He actually had the indiscretion to quote Lord Pethick-Lawrence who was a member of the Speaker's Conference. Lord Pethick Lawrence, in an "Evening Standard" interview, said that there was a gentleman's agreement at that time and that there were accommodations, but he went on specifically to deny that those committed future Parliaments. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman quoted Lord Pethick-Lawrence at all, as he is clearly a witness on my side.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds argued that his case was proved in part by the fact that the Boundary Commission, with whose report we are dealing in this Bill, was appointed under a Statute passed in the last Parliament which he and I piloted through the House of Commons. He said that, therefore, is proof


that the Government themselves did commit this Parliament. I cannot understand this argument at all. There was an Act of Parliament in the year 1944. Under that Act it was provided, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that a Boundary Commission should be appointed and that the case of the first redistribution should be submitted in this Parliament in the form of a Bill. That was clearly the implication of the Act, and, thereafter, it was to be done by Order subject to affirrnative Parliamentary Resolution. That is perfectly true. To allege that, because the Government have carried out the intention of an Act of Parliament and the actions of a previous Parliament, therefore, we are not free to take a different view from the previous Government or Parliament is quite beside the point and is ill-founded. If we had wished to disagree with the Act of r944 we could have disagreed with it, but to allege that merely because we have carried on with a number of the provisions of the Act of 1944 and brought into being a high proportion of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, therefore, we have got to carry out all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference is ridiculous. It is almost inviting us to disagree with every one of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference for the fun of the thing, and to prove how logical we are. So there is nothing in that argument.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked—and this follows upon what I have said—is this a voluntary action or is it because of certain commitments made in the last Parliament. This Government and this Parliament, within the proper constitutional field, are entitled to do what they like about this matter. It must be so, and it is true, therefore, that this Bill is a deliberate act on the part of the Government, because it believes that the Bill is right. There was a reference to various committees, some of which were appointed by myself and some by the present Home Secretary. He will deal with that and it is better that he should deal with the indictments against him. However, I am bound to say it does not impress me, although I think it was a bit ingenious —or ingenuous, I am not sure which—on the part of the right hon. Gentleman quoting from my right hon. Friend and taking a chunk out of the middle of what he said and remarking, "So there you

are." My right hon. Friend will deal with that.
Because some of these committees were appointed by myself under a previous Government and reported in this Parliament, and because the Carr Committee report made some recommendations about universities, therefore it has to be assumed that this Government is bound to preserve university representation is again pre posterous and absurd. The Carr Committee had referred to it a whole number of technical things. I forget whether I set it up or whether my right hon. Friend did, but I rather think I did in the first instance. If I did, it was perfectly natural that the universities should come within this sphere because I was acting as Home Secretary in a Coalition Government, and in any case it was desirable to have their observations on certain technicalities connected with, university representation because at that time no decision had been reached whether the university representation should go on or not, except that it obviously went on over the period of the last General Election. I just do not follow all this argument—that because certain things ran on from the last Parliament to this and that because these things arose out of the Speaker's Conference—we have, therefore, to do in this Parliament everything the Speaker's Conference recommended. I really do not follow it and I cannot accept it——

Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this point? I am sure that he would agree that the abolition of the university seats is at least important. Why did the Lord Chancellor when he was questioned on what the King's Speech meant, say that if noble Lords looked at the Report of the Speaker's Conference and two other documents which he named, they would know precisely what this Bill was going to do? Surely that was an absolute undertaking at that time that the university seats were not going to be abolished?

Mr. Morrison: It is not easy for one man to follow the exact mental processes of another man in answering a Parliamentary point. My impression is—I believe this to be the case—that points had been raised by Lord Samuel referring particularly to proportional representation, and it was in thinking of the proportional


representation aspect that my noble Friend referred to the Speaker's Conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There are reasons which I could add, but they are of an internal Cabinet nature, from which I am quite clear that my noble Friend could not have meant to say that the university representation would be preserved. In any case, it was a very short passage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It was——

Mr. Strauss: Mr. Strauss rose——

Mr. Morrison: One moment. Let the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities keep cool. Anybody who reads that passage and seeks to build upon it a specific pledge on behalf of His Majesty's Government that university representation is to be preserved, is much too imaginative for my understanding. It is entirely beside the point.

Mr. Strauss: I am sure that it is the right hon. Gentleman's memory which is playing him false. The Lord Chancellor in another place specifically informed Lord Samuel——

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. How far is it in Order either for the hon. and learned Member to ask or for my right hon. Friend to answer questions about what somebody said in another place during this Session?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to a Government announcement of policy. This is in Order.

Mr. Strauss: It is the Debate on the King's Speech to which I am referring. The Lord Chancellor informed Lord Samuel that he must make it quite clear that the Bill would not deal with proportional representation, but then he went on to refer to the Speaker's Conference and said that if the noble Lord would refer to the Report of that Conference and two other documents which he named, he would know precisely what the present Measure was going to do. Surely it is incredible that the Lord Chancellor would have said that unless he was saying the truth about the position at that time?

Mr. Morrison: The trouble with the hon. and learned Gentleman is that it is incredible to him that anybody should ever say anything which is inconvenient to him and his convictions——

Mr. Strauss: It is most convenient.

Mr. Morrison: Therefore, he prefers to make whatever interpretations of anybody's statements are convenient to his convictions and opinions. I only say that any fair-minded person reading this very brief reference by my noble Friend in another place really would not bind him to the details of a big Bill of this kind and to the whole of the Speaker's Conference Report——

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Strauss: It is not a detail.

Mr. Morrison: To the "items" then, if that is preferable——

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman tries to dismiss the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) but the Prime Minister at a very equivalent date—21st October, 1947—on the Debate on the Address said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who asked some questions about the Representation of the People Bill:
That is brought forward from the Speaker's Conference, and I am sure he will await the Bill…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1947; Vol. 443, C. 33.]
This is giving the impression—

Mr. Morrison: The two right hon. Gentlemen had better stick to the same words. I have not got the quotation before me but the right hon. Member for North Leeds said that the question put to the Prime Minister was in respect of redistribution——

Mr. Peake: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Morrison: I have not got the quotation with me——

Mr. Peake: The question put——

Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman read it?

Mr. Peake: No, but I can give it from memory. The question was in regard to the meaning of a phrase in the


King's Speech relating to electoral reform. In reply, with reference to the Redistribution of Seats Bill, the Prime Minister said—and this is where the right hon. Gentleman has got confused—that it was brought forward from the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Morrison: That is what I am getting at. That is rather different from the way in which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put it. This is a Bill for the redistribution of seats and it is being brought forward and it is a matter which was dealt with by the Speaker's Conference. Cannot the Prime Minister say that without being accused of having promised to preserve university representation? This only shows the utter thinness of the Opposition's case and the peculiar liking they have for the belief that Labour people are the kind of inferior people who cannot keep promises.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I do not wish to go into details on this, but is it not perfectly well known that the Cabinet came to this decision during the last two years? Nobody can tell what date, but it was at a later date. Whatever was said then, this is a decision made at a later date and the previous statement might be completely inconsistent with the later decision.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman, who has been a Minister, will appreciate that I cannot reveal the details of Cabinet discussions. The question he has put is a perfectly fair one. I can only say that the partial assumption behind the question is not accurate. I cannot say more than that.
It is also asked how we could have got an honourable discharge from these undertakings or bargains. I deny the undertakings and deny the bargains and say that no material evidence has been produced to show that there were any such undertakings or bargains. On the assumption that he was right, the right hon. Gentleman asked how we could get an honourable discharge. He said that we could have had another Speaker's Conference. I think I answered that before in the case of the statement made by Mr. Baldwin when he was Prime Minister. The other point was that we ought to have had an electoral mandate for the

specific proposals in this Bill. I speak from memory as from 1918, but I do not see how there could then have been any electoral mandate, for that Parliament had lasted since 1910 and, as far as I know, there was no electoral mandate, and anyhow it was a Coalition Government——

Mr. H. Strauss: There was agreement.

Mr. Morrison: I will come to that. There was another argument in the case of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, 1928. As far as I remember, there was no electoral mandate for it. I do not think the Conservative Party had it in their electoral manifesto of 1924. Probably the diehards in the party machine were too powerful for them to put it in; they were the trouble when it was put through Parliament. Therefore, I do not see that there was a mandate——

Mr. Peake: There was agreement in the House.

Mr. Morrison: One moment, I will come to that. As a matter of fact, in my own Measure in 1944, which made some important changes in electoral law, no party had any mandate for doing that, I think. The mandate argument and the Speaker's Conference argument both go down on their own bases, but there is always another shot in the locker of the Opposition, and that is that there was agreement. So it is now being argued that the Opposition has a sort of veto, that if they do not agree with the Government doing something in this sphere, we cannot do it. We have had quite enough trouble on this question of vetoes in the matter of another place and I suggest that the argument that the Government cannot act unless they carry with them the Conservative Party in this class of business is unreasonable and, quite definitely, we are not prepared to accept it. I shall now leave the argument of an alleged breach of faith. I deny and repudiate it with vigour and with absolute definiteness, and I assert that it has not in any way been proved. The accusation has been made, but there has been no proof.
Now I come on to the merits of university representation, which is really what the Debate is about, but one was bound to occupy some time in answering these


allegations of bad faith. The right hon. Gentleman said that the universities had returned notable people, and that there have been many recruits into the universities from the elementary schools. The same argument was made on that last point by the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Piekthorn). I entirely agree with him that over the last 50 years or so, even a shorter period——

Mr. Pickthorn: Much longer.

Mr. Morrison: —there has been a remarkable change in the composition of the universities and their students. When I was a boy, my recollection is that the chances of an elementary schoolboy going to the university were negligible.

Mr. W. J. Brown: One in a hundred.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) grew up at about the same time, I remember, because he was a trouble to me even in those days, and he says, one in a hundred.

Mr. K. Lindsay: One in a thousand.

Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) that the hon. Member for Rugby is optimistic and that it is nearly one in a thousand. I may be quite wrong but, as a matter of fact, I do not recall examinations for the secondary schools in the school at Stockwell Road to which I went, and I do not believe that central schools then existed. That was the situation then, and so I was a child, and am a child of the elementary schools. It makes me proud of the fact that, notwithstanding that, the elementary schools helped to give me a good knowledge, and perhaps helped to give me some good and useful reasoning powers, and I am grateful for my elementary school education. It is possible, being an elementary school boy and never having got beyond it, and having left at 14, to have a vindictive feeling, if one liked, against the universities, but I assure the Committee that I have no such vindictive feeling.
I am delighted that, as the years have passed, a very high proportion of the university undergraduates have come from the elementary schools on scholarships.

Indeed, why should I not be delighted, because the Labour Party, as much as any party, has advocated that that should he so, and our local education authorities in the great corporations of Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, the London County Council and others, and we ourselves, have played a big part in facilitating boys and girls of the working classes going to the universities. And I am delighted that at long last, after years of stodgy reaction, the University of Cambridge has begun to admit women in a proper way to the university.
Therefore, one is glad that that should be so, and I agree that there has been an almost revolutionary change in the composition of the universities over a limited period of years. But to argue as the Opposition does, that because boys and girls of the class to which many of us belong have now got to the universities, that ought to give us a class bias in favour of this form of plural voting and the separate representation of the universities, is really a very naughty argument. It is an appeal to selfish class interests; it is urging upon us that we should take, not a wide public-spirited view of university representation, but a purely class-conscious point of view, a proletarian class-conscious point of view, so that that will fit in with other class-conscious points of view, and a coalition of the two will pull off the university representation.
I do not care whether the whole 100 per cent. of the university undergraduates come from the elementary schools; I do not care whether the whole of them are thoroughly proletarian and working class in origin; I still say that that form of plural voting representation is wrong, and that it has no more right to special representation in Parliament than has the Old Scholars Association of the Stockwell Road Board School to which I went. No more and—I want to be fair—no less. I submit that that argument goes down.
The hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, I thought, took a little too much pity on himself when he drew a picture, which nearly brought tears to my eyes, of being the accused person in the dock, waiting to be dragged along to the Tower to have his head cut off. He is quite right about the Tower. I have just been reading a book on the life of Henry VIII——

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope it is the one I wrote.

Mr. Morrison: I was looking up the possible origin of delegated legislation. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman says, as far as I can tell, that it was customary for the prisoners about to be beheaded to be permitted to make a speech to the populace who were witnessing the sad occurrence, although I am bound to say that the executioner or the gaoler at the Tower had a habit of saying "You can say something, but don't say much; cut it short." Well, we did not say that to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, were delighted that we did not, because he gave us an interesting speech, with most of which we disagreed, but it was an interesting speech. I remember that Anne Boleyn was particularly encouraged not to say much, which perhaps was just as well in all the circumstances of the case.
The hon. Member referred to overseas graduates, but, if I may say so, I think he overdid that argument. I cannot believe that the people overseas have such an intimate tie-up with university Members of Parliament in particular that they would think it was absolutely essential to preserve them. He also argued that the university Members are known to a higher number of the electors of the universities. If I may say so with respect, I doubt it very much. They may be, I concede this; I imagine that they probably are quite well known to a high proportion of the persons now in the universities, working in the universities, and so on, and, of course, to a proportion of those who have left and whom they have known personally in earlier years. However, there must be a high proportion of the university electors who have been away for such a time, without revisiting the universities, that they would not necessarily know the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University or the other university Members. Moreover, there is this awkward fact, that at the last General Election the percentage of electors voting in the university elections was abnormally low as compared with the country as a whole. It was about 50 per cent.

Mr. Pickthorn: Yes, why?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: Because a far higher proportion had been on active service.

Mr. Morrison: My recollection is—and by all means let me be corrected if I am wrong—that the facilities for Service people voting were open to university electors like other electors and I have no doubt that they took advantage of their opportunities as much as other people. I do not think that is a very valid argument.

Mr. Pickthorn: Perhaps I did not make myself plain. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. In a normal constituency nine-tenths of the people were present and the odd tenth were away on active service. With us the whole thing had to be done by postal facilities. Some nine-tenths of the constituency is masculine and more than half were of military age.

Sir A. Herbert: One more reason is that in the case of overseas voters, who came to one in six, or one in seven, of these voters, because of the shortage of aeroplanes, we were not allowed to send them the papers and they could not vote.

Mr. Morrison: Of course we are all speaking from memory and I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the facilities open to candidates in the case of university elections were the same as in other elections. The hon. Member for Cambridge University may be right in saying that the actual percentage of university people away on active service may have been higher than in the case of electors in other constituencies, but that does not account for the dramatic difference in the percentage of the poll between the universities and other constituencies.
I think the truth is as indicated by the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) that by its very nature the university election cannot be intensively conducted. It is a very polite affair. Election addresses go out and it is a postal affair. The electors are left to do what they like about it, or nothing, whereas in the territorial elections there are elaborate party machines, or independent machines, if desired, and there is canvassing. That is one of the difficulties about university representation, that it is difficult to get life into the battle that goes on to determine who is to win.
I cannot see the argument that there is a connection between the return of M.P.s and the academic freedom of the universities. I cannot see the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, although I listened to him with very great care. It seems to me that academic freedom is neither guaranteed nor promoted by representation in the House, nor do I believe academic freedom—to which I attach much importance—would be affected by the absence of hon. Members from this House. In any case, I do not think that is a relevant consideration.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University also referred to the fact that the Labour majority is higher than the electoral figures. That is perfectly true and it has happened before in our island story and we are glad that it is so this time. But the validity of our argument cannot be challenged because we have the fortune this time which has been held by the Conservative Party in the past. The hon. Member also said that this was a blow to learning and the learned professions. Again, I cannot see the argument. I cannot see that the presence or absence of Members of Parliament from the universities either helps or injures learning or the learned professions. The learning will go on and the learned professions will go on, and from time to time one of them will have battles with Ministers of Health.
The Labour Party has not experienced, the difficulty from which I understand the party opposite is inclined to think it suffers, of getting persons of intellectual attainments adopted in ordinary constituencies. We have had no difficulty and if we take the general run of university M.P.s, although it is perfectly true that some of them have stood out in the course of history, I must say that those have been well used in the course of this Debate. They keep cropping up, as Miss Wilkinson's Hire Purchase Bill and the Matrimonial Causes Bill of the hon. Member for Oxford University kept cropping up in Private Members' Time. That is all very well, but while there have been some distinguished persons there have also been plenty of others sent from the universities. I do not want to go into personal discussions as to the relative merits of hon. Members who sit in this House, but to suggest that the general run of university Members is

of such a special nature and above the average of the rest of us, is a suggestion which I do not think bears examination, even though I admit that from time to time the universities have sent distinguished people here.
The objection we have is that this means a plural vote and a type of Parliamentary representation which is not rationally justified, and is not constitutionally justified. There is no more right to pick out universities for representation than the law, science, technical people, the learned societies, the medical profession and so on. There is no case for picking them out. It is an anomaly which started with James I, for some reason I have been unable to fathom, and even he did not get many university people into Parliament. We think it is an anomaly which is not now justifiable, if indeed it ever was.
I do not want the Committee to think, and I do not want the country to think, that the Government are taking this course out of any antagonism to the universities. We admire the universities, and it is perfectly true that the Government have not been ungenerous in relation to the universities, nor would we wish to be so. We have been as helpful as we can and the universities have been very helpful to the Government, and distinctly and notably to myself as Lord President of the Council, because I asked them for many things in connection with scientific affairs for the Government and the nation. Our relations with the universities have been good, and we would wish them to be so. I am an admirer of the universities, although I have never been a student there. I have been to debates, and knocked about in universities, and I wish I had had a university education. Do not let the Committee think that we are doing this out of ignorant class prejudice against the universities as such. We are taking this course because we genuinely and sincerely believe that it is inappropriate at this time to have this type of Parliamentary representation, which is not in accord with properly conceived democracy and which we think should now come to an end. In that spirit I commend the proposal to the Committee.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I wish to intervene for a short time because, as the Leader of the House knows, I have been concerned with this matter probably


rather more than most hon. Members. I was a member of the Committee on Electoral Machinery which was set up by the present Leader of the House in 1942. I was also a member of the Speaker's Conference. Both these Committees had one thing in common. They were set up to deal with two definite and distinct situations. First of all, to deal with the Election which would take place in the immediate postwar period, which was difficult because of the change in the population, and matters of that kind, and also to deal with the more permanent aspect of the matter which would result after the first postwar Election. The purpose of the Speaker's Conference was to try to obtain agreed solutions on various controversial points, such as the university franchise, to be incorporated in the redistribution Bill, which was going to come, and which is now before the House.
I say with complete confidence that no hon. Member entered that Speaker's Conference with any other idea than that its recommendations would be binding, in essentials, for both the immediate postwar Election and also the next General Election, after conditions became more normal. That is the situation in which we are today. I strongly maintain that the suggestion which is now made that its decisions are not binding on this Parliament is quite unwarranted. The right hon. Gentleman stated, quite properly, and quite truly that the House of Commons can do anything. Of course this House of Commons can do what its majority desires it to do. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he did not think the Government were in any way bound to carry out the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.
But that conference was set up because there were a lot of highly contentious matters such as university representation, and it was desired, if possible, to reach an agreed decision from an all-party conference. It would not of course be binding for all time, but I contend that its decisions were certainly meant to bind the first postwar Election and the subsequent Election. The point is that the Speaker's Conference did reach agreement on a lot of very controversial matters. It was a very remarkable conference. Members of the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal party, working together harmoniously,

reached a lot of agreed solutions. One of these, adopted without a Division, was that university representation should continue. The right hon. Gentleman must surely realise that, in these controversial matters, a very great deal was given away by Members on this side of the Committee. There was the question of the local government franchise. Contrary to the views of most Conservatives, it was agreed to add some 7,000,000 voters to that register. This was a very large concession.
Another point, which I do not think has, been mentioned, was that at the Speaker's Conference the Conservative Members agreed that practically the only change in, redistribution which took place before the last Election, and that was that the very large seats were to be split up. The Conservative Members would have liked to see not only the large seats divided, but many of the small seats merged in larger seats. Because the Labour Party did not like that, as many of these small seats were held by them, the Conservative Members gave way on that point in order to secure unanimity and the small seats were not interfered with.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I find this very difficult to follow, but I am seriously worried about this point. I cannot see how all the Members of the Speaker's Conference on one side could have come to an agreement with all the Members on the other. No one has yet said by whom agreement was reached and between whom that agreement itself was concluded.

Sir H. O'Neill: There was no agreement in the sense that there was any signed document. It was a general all-party conference, which came to certain decisions, unanimously on the main points. Certainly we all thought, and I believe that my Socialist colleagues also thought, that that agreement would be binding, not only for the one election, but certainly for two. There was no agreement signed. It was what we have come so often to hear of now—a gentleman's agreement.

Mr. Blackburn: Was it expressed orally? The right hon. Member has said that there was no agreement signed. Was an agreement reached verbally, and if so, by whom, and when?

Sir H. O'Neill: Agreement was reached in the Speaker's Conference on certain controversial matters. It was understood that if one party gave way on one thing the other party would give way on another. That was, at any rate, my understanding of it, as a member of the Conference. I cannot tell the hon. Member any more than that. I think it is not denied that there was an agreement. The only thing which is denied is whether the agreement binds this Parliament. I maintain that it does, or that it ought to.
I do not propose to deal with the merits of university representation. I am in favour of it. I think university seats have a very strong claim to maintain their ancient representation in this House. It has been said that that means plural voting. If plural voting is the only objection—I know this point has been put forward many times before—why not allow the university elector to choose whether he will use his university vote, or his other vote? If that were done, there would not be plural voting. What I have said on the general question arises out of my experience on two important conferences in recent years, concerned with electoral reform and redistribution. I must say, in spite of the eloquence and able pleading of the Leader of the House, that this is a sorry business. The repudiation of the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference on this question of university franchise is a definite breach of faith, it is discreditable to this Government and it lowers the whole tone and standard of our Parliamentary institutions.

Mr. John McKay: I have been most interested in this discussion. I do not want to deal with the controversial question of what happened before this Parliament was elected. The things which matter now are whether the special representation of the universities can be justified and whether that system leads to good results. While the Communist Party may be out to create a classless society by various means of which we cannot approve, we are out to lay a basis of equal values and opportunities so that all people will have the same chance, either in public affairs or in other respects, to get what our natural potential powers give us the chance of obtaining. I listened to one of the speeches from the opposite

side of the Committee with great interest. I know that it was a great intellectual effort to show reason why the attitude of the Government ought to be changed but, for some reason or other, I could not follow the intellectual argument. I do not know whether that was due to my want of intellect or due to the rather indifferent exposition of the university representative. It may have been due to both.
The point may be laboured that there have been representatives of the universities in this House and that, in many cases, they have stood out as individuals; but the question arises whether that was due to something arising out of the special representation of the universities, or whether it was not particularly due to the fact that those individuals had special opportunities, perhaps from their youth onward, to develop their capacities. Perhaps because of that, they were outstanding compared with many other hon. Members of this House at that time. I noticed also that one of the speakers seemed to have a feeling that the miners were over-represented in this House because of the method of selection. I happen to be a miner although I represent a mixed constituency which includes one of the important areas on Tyneside connected with shipbuilding, and also a suburban area of Newcastle. I began to wonder whether, in reality, behind the opposition to this legislation, there was a feeling that someone was being prevented from taking advantage of special opportunities and others, like the miners, were over-represented.
On the question of representation in this House, what is it that matters? Is there anything in this Bill which retards the opportunity of any university man? Of course, there is not. If anyone wants to get into political life and he has been through a university, has he not had an opportunity above many other people to develop his capabilities and, as a result, will he not be in a better position to get into this House in ordinary competition with the rest of his fellow men? If he is not a Labour man, he is usually a Conservative or a Liberal. If he is an outstanding character representing a special viewpoint, he still has the opportunity of becoming a Member of this House. Thai is all we want.
We want opportunity to be given for the selection of the men best able to


represent public life in the country. Of course, if they have ability and can express themselves and indicate that ability, then they have the same opportunity to be selected as anyone else. As the Leader of the House indicated, there are all kinds of classes and sections of society. There are all kinds of universities in life itself. There is the experience of the working man who has ability, who goes amongst his fellows and does a hard day's work. He may get special knowledge of a given industry which enables him to represent his fellows, deal with complaints and present their viewpoint on public matters. That is a university and, in many respects, if a man has ability, it is a better university than the real university.
This Bill merely represents the spirit of the times. We are out to do away with special privileges. We believe in equal opportunity being given to man. Having got that, we cannot see the necessity for having special representation of a special interest, whatever that interest may be. The old university representation, as it developed, was a class representation arising out of class interest. Whatever viewpoint we may have in politics, I think we all agree that the days of sectionalism and special representation are over, that we should have equality of opportunity and let the best man win. By passing this Bill, I think we are getting further down to the bedrock of democracy.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) who gave certain general arguments against the university franchise. The Leader of the House said just now that he was sorry that too little time had been taken up in discussing the intrinsic merits of university representation, which, he said, was the real question. Of course, it would be the real question if there were not a previous question, namely, whether it is right and proper for the Government in present circumstances to bring in this proposal. I think that previous question does arise. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the House dismiss the charge of what I will call a breach of an honourable obligation as lightly and cavalierly as he did just now. I would like to repeat that charge, and to make it quite clear to what address I send it.
I do not, of course, claim that Parliament is not free to do whatever lies within its legal powers. But this proposal was not made by Parliament, it was made to this Parliament by Ministers who were deeply involved in the Speaker's Conference and in what followed after. I make no complaint of hon. Members on that side of the House, who gave perfectly respectable reasons why there should not be university representation as a permanent feature in our Constitution. I do not agree with those reasons, but they are perfectly respectable reasons, and I do not complain of hon. Members who having come in, like the hon. Member himself, at the last election express their views against the universities representation.
My charge is against the particular Ministers involved, first, the Ministers who were on the Conference, and, secondly, Ministers who, while not members of the Conference, were Ministers at the time the Conference took place. I think that, if we ask ourselves if there was an honourable obligation upon them to see that the recommendations of the Conference were implemented, whether in the Parliament of that time or in this Parliament, there are four reasons, which are cumulatively decisive for saying that they are so bound.
The first reason is that, in the very nature of the case, an all-party conference is intended to transcend the oscillations of party fortunes from Parliament to Parliament. I will not argue that further as it has been argued before. The second reason seems to me much stronger. Let us look at the actual Report of the Speaker's Conference. It includes a plan which is a balanced whole, one part of which could be, and, in fact, was, quickly enacted into law, the other part of which, in the nature of the case, could not be, requiring, as it did, the intervening work of the Boundary Commissions. The Speaker's Conference met in 1944. No member of that conference can have expected that the Boundary Commissions could complete their work in less than a period of some years. No member of that conference then expected that the Parliament of that time would last as long as would be required by the Boundary Commissions to do their work. Surely, that is clear.
Therefore, it must have been in the minds of all members of the conference that, while part of the recommendations could be put into law in that Parliament, the other part must and could only be enacted in a later Parliament. Indeed, I need not argue as to what it is that hon. Members must have thought, as the Speaker's Conference Report is quite clear itself. It starts off by making a distinction between certain temporary recommendations, which, as it says, can and should be enacted before the election, that is to say, in that Parliament; and the other recommendations, which are to be enacted and brought into effect after an election, that is to say, in another Parliament—this one. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the members of that conference must have thought that part of their recommendations would be enacted in a later Parliament than the Parliament sitting at the time of the conference.
My third reason, which has already been referred to, is the statement made on behalf of the Government in another place. When we were discussing this question a little earlier, I complained to the Leader of the House that we had had no warning from any responsible quarter that this change was contemplated until 30th January, to which the Leader of the House replied, "Don't you read the Press?" I replied, "Yes, I do read the Press." I said I had seen in the Press, and my constituents had called my attention to, certain rumours that this step would be taken. I said however that I had also read the formal statement made at the end of the Debate in another place in reply to the King's Speech by the spokesmen of the Government, which said, quite definitely, that what would be in the Electoral Bill would be precisely what had been recommended. I asked the Leader of the House whether, in future, when we had a formal statement on behalf of the Government, on the one hand, and anonymous and unauthenticated rumours in the Press on the other, we should believe the second and disregard the first, to which I had no answer, except the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave a few moments ago.
There is one other reason, my fourth, why I consider that not Parliament, not private hon. Members, but Ministers are

personally bound, and it is what the Secretary of State for Scotland said on Second Reading. Now, the Secretary of State speaks with rather a special authority, because he was the one Minister who was both a member of the Conference and was also chosen by the Government as one of their principal spokesmen to defend the proposal on Second Reading. What the right hon. Gentleman said was not that there was no agreement, but that, on the contrary, the Labour Party was released from the agreement by the fact that the Conservative Party had broken it. When we asked him how, he said in two ways; first since the General Election, two universities had elected Conservatives; and second, some of the hon. Members who already represented universities had voted against the Government. He referred in particular to the senior Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and myself. Those were the reasons why the agreement could be broken—because it had already been broken by the other side. They are extremely interesting reasons, and I will come back to them in a moment. I quote them now merely as recognition of the fact that there was indeed an agreement, and an agreement intended to operate not only in the previous Parliament but in this Parliament.
The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland was very interesting indeed, because of the character of the reasons which he gave and because the reasons were quite clearly those which had actuated the Government. There is a convincing candour about the right hon. Gentleman and indeed a transparent honesty of the kind which is particularly revealing, because it comes from a man who blurts out the truth without apparently quite understanding the full implications of what he says. I think that all of us would admit the complete sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman and recognise that when he spoke to us he gave the real reasons which had actuated the Government in taking this step. What did he say? He said, as I remarked just now, that the agreement had been broken because two Conservatives had been elected, and because my right hon. Friend and myself had sometimes voted against the Government.
Let us examine what those reasons mean, and what they imply. They mean


that when the Secretary of State was deliberating with his colleagues at the Speaker's Conference, he thought that he was binding himself, and that they were binding themselves, not merely to make some changes in an electorate, but binding themselves also as to what Members the electors would afterwards elect. This is a most extraordinary theory as to what members of a conference do and can do, and a very interesting constitutional theory. It is worth inquiring, too, what was the nature of the offence committed. It clearly was not that a party Member stood for a university constituency because Mr. G. D. H. Cole stood as a Labour candidate and as my opponent in a university election; and his first supporter in that election was the Prime Minister. That therefore is not the offence. Is the offence, not that they are party candidates, but that they are Conservative Party candidates, or is the offence that they are elected? Anyhow, it is a very interesting theory.
The other part of the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine is even more interesting. He not only said that it was an offence for Conservatives to stand as candidates, and to be elected; he said that my right hon. Friend and myself, in some way or other, justified the Labour Party in breaking this agreement because we had sometimes spoken and voted against the Government. That is to say, he thought that he and his colleagues were binding themselves at that time to secure that my right hon. Friend and myself, and other hon. Members, should vote in a particular way, or should not vote in a particular way. This, again, is an extraordinarily interesting constitutional theory. It is also extremely interesting as a candid and honest exposition of the reasons which apparently guided the Government in coming to this decision.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading Debate whether he seriously meant that the Government's reason for the permanent abolition of University seats, some of which have been in existence for over three centuries, was to be found in the fact that he disliked the party complexion of some of the dozen present incumbents of these seats, or the personality or the votes of some of those actual individuals at this time. That, apparently, was his position. Is not

such a reason petty, personal and perverse? I have no doubt that we shall now be given certain other reasons, and more respectable reasons, for this change as they have been given by the Government's back bench supporters, But these are the reasons given by the Front Bench.

Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a reason for his defence of plural voting? We are hearing a criticism of why its abolition has been introduced by the Government, but we should like to hear the case for plural voting.

Sir A. Salter: I will say a word in answer to that in a moment. It is perfectly clear that even if the intrinsic case against the universities were a strong one, it is still a fact that present Ministers were not acting honourably in bringing this proposal before Parliament at this time, and in these circumstances. If they had not done so, then the discussion on merits would not now arise. However, as I have said, I will make some reference to that in a moment.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how it would not arise? He would have to decide, and to vote, on the proposal before the House. We are being told by the right hon. Gentleman that we have in no sense honoured the pledge given, but will he tell us why any discussion on the proposal is irrelevant, and why he will not state the case for plural and university voting?

Sir A. Salter: It would not now arise, because this proposal has not been brought before Parliament by Parliament; it has been brought before Parliament by Ministers who, in my contention, were in honour bound not to bring it forward at the moment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am one of the people on these benches who were not in the previous Parliament, but who, if the Government had not introduced this Measure, would have put down a Motion, which would have been carried.

Sir A. Salter: I say at once that I have no complaint against hon. Members such as the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) who has just made the intervention. Perhaps it would have arisen by a Motion put down


as he says. However, it has, in fact, arisen through Ministers bringing forward the proposal on their own full ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the merits of the proposal? They are what we are interested in.

Sir A. Salter: If the "previous question" were decided as I think it should be, then the question of merits would not arise. Looking at the whole of the case, not merely as I put it now, but as it has been developed, both in Second Reading and today, I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand how any objective observer could come to any other conclusion than that the Ministers who have put forward this proposal were not honourably able to do so in these circumstances. I was extremely glad to hear the Leader of the House say just now that he was willing to submit this question to an impartial body for their advice and expression of opinion on this point. I hope that was not an idle word, and that such an arrangement will be made.
The Committee may think that I have spent rather too much time in talking about the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it really was a very interesting speech. I would just add that this Parliament may end our political life as university Members in this House, and may stifle our voices in this House. But if the university franchise is killed, some of us will still have enough life in us to attend the obsequies of the victim, and we shall have the right normally exercised by the mourners to choose the epitaph on the tomb. We shall certainly use our voices and our pens outside this House, even if no longer inside it; and I think we shall agree to choose as the epitaph the crucial words of the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
But the Secretary of State for Scotland was not alone. In winding up the Second Reading Debate, the Leader of the House began his speech at 10 minutes past nine, and did not refer to the universities—which was, after all, the main departure from the Speaker's Conference Report—until, I think, 9.55. At 9.58, he suddenly lauched a personal attack on university Members in respect of their personal attendance. He knows perfectly well, as

my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said, that the Division record is quite irrelevant because, as regards those of us who are Independents, we frequently attend the whole day and do not vote. That is not because we find it more difficult than other people to make up our minds on a particular question, but because, when hon. Members who belong to a party have no particular view on some minor details of a Bill, they naturally vote for the general purpose of either supporting the Government, if they are hon. Members opposite, or of weakening the Government if they are hon. Members on this side of the House.
But I was pledged to my electors—and other Independents may be in the same position—not to vote except on particular questions on which I had an opinion to express in accordance with the policy I advocated to my electors. Of course, therefore, the Division record is no barometer of attendance at all. My point, at the moment, is that the Leader of the House, in justifying this proposal in the last few minutes of a speech which took three quarters of an hour to deliver, gave a petty and personal reason, and made a shocking personal attack upon university Members. He deliberately timed it for 9.58, two minutes before the Closure, when, as he knew, no effective intervention could be made. If there was anything shocking, it was to make such a charge at such a time.
I have not spoken in general on the intrinsic merits of the university case and I do not propose to do so, except for a few words, for two reasons: first of all, if the case I have tried to put forward is right, this question would not arise, and, secondly, I think, as a university Member, that the positive merits of the university case are perhaps best put forward by other Members.
Just a word on the arithmetical principle, on which opponents of the university franchise chiefly rely. I am much intrigued by the metaphysical subtlety of the Labour Government's application of this arithmetic principle. In its relation to the university franchise it has an absolute sanctity; in relation to Scotland and Wales, and those other constituencies in each part of the United Kingdom where the recognition of some kind of special community has been allowed to lead to


more than the arithmetical representation —in such cases, this principle has not an absolute sanctity but a qualified sanctity; and when we come to electoral procedure and such a question as proportional representation, it has no sanctity at all. This principle is the reason, the main and almost the only reason which is relied upon by people opposing the university franchise on merits; and in view of the exceptions I have quoted, it is really too much to regard it as sacrosanct in this one case.
I must say one or two words about Independents, because they were referred to both by the Secretary of State for Scotland the other day and by my right hon. Friend today. It is, of course, true that I and some other Independents have tended to vote and to speak more against the Labour Government than in their support. This is not an accident. The natural tendency of Independents is to be more often than not in opposition to any Government, whether of the right or of the left. The mere fact that they tend to be in the middle of the way, leads to this result. They are half way between—naturally tending to protest against Measures proposed by the right and to oppose Measures proposed from the left.
I can assure the Government that, so far as I am concerned—and I think this is true of other Members—I certainly do not speak or vote against this Government more frequently and more consistently than against the Conservative Government when it was in power. Independents are, of course, rather unpopular and likely to be disliked by any organised party, particularly by the organised party in power. That is not a novel or surprising phenomenon. I well remember that some 10 years ago the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) taunted me by quoting words of his distinguished ancestor to the effect that an Independent was a person who could not be depended upon. I said at once, that certainly the party organisation cannot depend on him but, for that very reason, the electors, to whom certain pledges of policy have been made, can rely on him rather more.
The fact is that any party organisation finds its ideal Member in the best disciplined Member. Walter Bagehot talks of a visitor coming into this House, looking along the serried ranks of the Government supporters and exclaiming in ecstasy of

admiration—"By Jove, the finest brute votes in Europe." That, of course, is the natural ideal of any organised party, particularly the organised party which is in power for the moment. I do not for one moment contest the orthodox view that it would impair the efficiency of the Government if there were 100 or 200 Independents in the House. I recognise that the main basis of the Parliamentary representation must be through party organisation. Nevertheless, I suggest it is of some value, at any rate commensurate with the number of the University seats, that there should be at any time some Members—there are not likely to be more than about a dozen—who are not under party discipline. I well remember in the years before the last war that a very considerable number of the party supporting the Government which was in power differed strongly from the policy of the Government but could not say so. There was, indeed, one great man in the party of sufficient stature who could speak on any occasion and speak with effect. But it was an advantage that there were also certain independent Members—who did not have anything like his status, and who could not have spoken with effect had they been disciplined Members of the party then in power. It helped Parliament to crystallise its views that those Members should be in the House.
There is one other point I would suggest to the Government. I think if they go on with this proposal there will be very considerable political consequences. This will be regarded, whether rightly or wrongly, as another blow at the professional middle classes, who constitute a very considerable part of the floating vote which determines one Election after another. Over the last two and a half years this class has suffered one material injury after another. Many members of it, who supported the present Government at the last Election, have been wondering, and wondering more and more, whether these injuries were only the incidental and inevitable result of the Government's general Socialist policy, or whether there was not, sometimes, something like sectionalist malice as well—not, indeed, consistent hostility by the Government or by the mass of their supporters, many of whom, of course, belong to precisely this class, but a suspicion that now


and then, here and there, the policy was in fact deflected by a certain incursion of political forces in which there was an element of malice. This suspicion has been mounting. It was because it existed that the silly phrase, "tinker's cuss," which would otherwise have been quickly forgotten, had such importance. It seemed to reveal and to confirm that suspicion. But this proposal is not just a silly phrase; this is action, this is a wanton and unprovoked blow. It is neither required nor justified by any mandate. It is not required by the general Socialist policy of the Government; it is a wanton, unprovoked blow without warning and, as I have argued, against what could properly be regarded as pledges by those who strike the blow.
In my last words I would like, not to discuss, for reasons I have mentioned, the intrinsic merits of the university franchise, but to make a request to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who has, with the Prime Minister, a very special constitutional responsibility for what is now being done—while they were not equally involved with the other Ministers in the earlier stages, in the Speaker's Conference and so on—I would ask those two Ministers whether they will now carefully review the whole of the case which has been put on Second Reading, and again today, to the effect, not that the university seats should be permanent elements of the Constitution, but that in these circumstances this proposal should not now have been made. If they are convinced that it should not have been, I have sufficient respect for them to believe they would withdraw it. I would urge Private Members who have entered Parliament for the first time to vote against these Government proposals, even though they may have many reasons for voting against university franchise as such. Let them reserve their right to continue to advocate abolition later. But I would ask them not to vote against the university franchise now, if they are convinced that the Ministers whom they support were not free, in view of their previous engagements, to make this proposal now.
7.0 p.m.
Let me repeat my exact charge. It is against Ministers. I do not allege any additional agreement reached outside the conference. I say that when

Members take part in a conference like the Speaker's Conference, and agree unanimously, after a process of give and take, to certain recommendations which form a balanced whole, they are honourably bound to give effect to those proposals for the period to which those recommendations were intended to apply; and, as I have tried to argue, that period certainly extended beyond the Parliament of that time into the period of this Parliament. I say, therefore, that for that reason they are honourably bound to refrain from making the proposals they have now made.
I say to hon. Members who on merits desire the abolition of the university franchise that they might well on this ground vote for the Amendment reserving their position to attack, the university seats as such on a future and more appropriate occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) is opposed to university seats, but she is against this proposal now, and said it ought first to be submitted to another Speaker's conference. I commend her example to other Members who take the same view as she does on the intrinsic merits of the question. I would therefore ask hon. Members who are in favour of the abolition of the university franchise to consider, before they take their final decision, whether there is not substance in the case that has been argued, and if so, whether they will not vote for the Amendment, and, while reserving their rights for the future, vote against the Government's proposal now.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have listened, as I am sure all hon. Members here have, with great interest and attention to the very powerful and cogent arguments which have been addressed to us on this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). Although I cannot bring myself to support his views, and, for reasons which I intend to indicate very briefly, cannot support this Amendment, I would assure the right hon. Gentleman that we all in this Committee admire his honest independence and integrity, and feel on all personal grounds that it would be very regrettable if, unhappily, he did not seek and obtain a seat here for some territorial constituency in another Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman addressed most of


his speech to what he called the previous question, that is, to what has been called the breach of faith by certain Ministers; and he addressed only a relatively small part of his speech to the merits of the matter. He appealed to hon. Members on this side who are back benchers, and who, as he admitted, are not in any way bound by any pledges or agreement which he conceived to be binding upon certain individual gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench. I want quite briefly to explain the reasons why I am unable to support the retention of the university franchise.
First, however, I should like to say that I think we all agree that new Members of this House are not bound by pledges given in previous Parliaments—even if there was an agreement. Speaking for myself, I am convinced that, on merits, the balance of argument is for the abolition of the university franchise; but I would attach so much importance to the preservation of good faith between the parties, for the reason put forward in the argument of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), that even although, on the merits of the case, I were obliged to vote for the abolition of the university franchise, nevertheless if I were convinced that there was a case of bad faith by the party to which I have the honour to belong, or by Ministers of the Government, in bringing forward this Measure, then I would accept that as more important, and support the bargain which was made.
However, having listened to or read all the speeches made on Second Reading and those which have been made tonight, having heard to what has been said on both sides, I find it very difficult to bring myself to believe that there was anything in the nature of a definite, hard and fast bargain between the parties, clearly and definitely recorded, precise in terms, precise in its extent, precise in its period of duration, which is of such constitutional importance that it ought to be binding not only on those who made it but upon this Parliament, and, indeed, upon the electorate, who are the people with whose interests we are primarily concerned. It seems to me that there may have been room for a great deal of misunderstanding about what went on in the Speaker's Conference. I do not think it is necessary to challenge the recollection

or the good faith, either on the one side or the other, of those who participated in that Conference.
The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady M. Lloyd George) did not know anything about this bargain, if there was a bargain at all. I gather it was a bargain between the parties. Incidentally, it seems to me that it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University to plead this, because he claims all the merits and advantages of independence. I do not think he can have the best of both worlds. If he is relying on anything, I understand he is relying upon a bargain between parties from which he holds aloof.

Sir A. Salter: I said nothing whatever about a bargain between parties. What I did say was that when Members participate in a conference like the Speaker's Conference there is, surely, an honourable obligation upon them when, after discussion, they unite unanimously on certain recommendations, to carry those recommendations out. It is obligatory in honour upon the Members of that Speaker's Conference to carry out those recommendations, not only in that last Parliament, but in this one, too.

Mr. Fletcher: What emerges from that general proposition is, that if in future there are discussions between parties, such as those in a Speaker's Conference, or such as those now going on in regard to the powers and constitution of another place, it would be eminently desirable, when any agreement is reached, that it should be written down, recorded, and published, so that everybody may know what was intended by the participants, and so that there may be no further room for misunderstanding. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that all this difficulty has arisen now because of various interpretations that are put on the one side and on the other upon certain speeches which were made subsequently to the Speakers' Conference in a Debate, and which contained merely incidental references to this matter. The position today on which back benchers have to express themselves is the intention at that time with regard to the duration of the alleged bargain.

Sir A. Salter: The Speaker's Conference Report of May, 1944, stated quite clearly


the matters on which there was unanimous recommendation and this was one of them. The names are appended, the details are precise and there is no question of any difference of opinion. The only question raised was whether they were intended to apply beyond that Parliament. The Report itself makes a distinction between matters which could be enacted quickly and those which, in the nature of the case, could not be enacted until a later Parliament.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. The argument has now been repeated almost ad nauseam. I am bound also to give weight to what has been said by the Lord President and by other hon. Members who thought quite definitely that there was nothing binding upon any subsequent Parliament. If in future there are discussions between the parties on Constitutional matters, it would be desirable that they should be reduced to terms which are understood not only by those taking part but by the whole country. That, clearly, is not the case here. At the time of the election I knew nothing about this alleged bargain.
The matter was not directly in issue in my constituency. I do not claim to be in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), but if such a matter had been in issue and I had been asked to give my opinion, I should have said that I was in favour of the abolition of the university franchise. I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on this side were not aware of any alleged bargain which would bind their voice and votes on this issue when they were returned to the House of Commons. I am equally convinced that if they had been asked to express an opinion to their constituents, or give a pledge to the electorate, the overwhelming majority would have said that the Labour Party long stood for the abolition of the university franchise and that, if the issue arose in the new Parliament, they would support the abolition of the university franchise.
That is the position in which we find ourselves today. The right hon. Gentleman addressed most of his remarks to the Secretary of State for Scotland and others who, he said, were responsible for

introducing the Bill. But they also have a responsibility for doing the right thing by the electorate in this Representation of the People Bill. They cannot escape the responsibility of facing the issue of the abolition of the university franchise. As my hon. Friend in his intervention pointed out, if this question had not been raised by the Government it would have been raised by independent Members as, in fact, it has. As a matter of form there is no proposal in the Bill for the abolition of the university franchise. It is a Measure proposing that in future there should be certain constituencies. That may be only a procedural point, but it indicates significantly that this matter would have been raised in some way or other in the Bill. It is now being raised on an Amendment and the issue has to be faced on its merits.
I would explain, if I may, why I am personally opposed to the retention of the university franchise. I speak in common with a number of hon. Friends on this side who are university graduates, who are great lovers of the universities, and who believe intensely in the powerful contribution they can and will make to the efforts of this country. They believe also that it is quite unnecessary for the universities, in discharging their responsibility to the country to have this additional political privilege of special representation in Parliament. I approach the matter also as one who does not accept the suggestion that the university seats, if retained, will before very long be the concern of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little) had a very narrow majority at the last Election and, if I may say so, scraped in by only a very small number of votes over his Labour opponent.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: As an Independent.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: The views and principles of the hon. Member and his record of voting are well known in his constituency. All I would say is that the University of London is one, but not alone, of the universities which in all probability would have returned a Labour candidate at the next election. Therefore, Members on this side should not be accused of approaching this matter in any partisan spirit.
On all sentimental grounds, I would like to see the university franchise preserved. It is an interesting feature of our Constitution which has a great deal of history to recommend it. This is a matter in which we must be really serious. The whole problem of framing our constitution as we go through the centuries is to arrive gradually at a closer approximation to a more perfect form of democracy. When university seats were first introduced, in the days when most other seats were the preserve of the landed aristocracy, they may have fulfilled a very real function. It cannot today be said that the preservation of the university franchise is necessary for the voicing and expressing of university interests in this House. Those who argue for the continuation of the university franchise must justify it on merit.
We have heard very little in support of the view that university franchise is necessary, but there have been attempts to support it for two reasons. One is that it is good for the universities and, the second, that it is good for the State. With regard to the first, it is now realised that there are numerous hon. Members on both sides who are able to put, in its wider sense, the point of view of the universities and the professions of learning and of education, irrespective of whether or not they sit for university seats.
I would remind the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who spoke during the Second Reading Debate, that he gave his whole case away on that argument. He pointed out that in this country:
we lag behind many other countries in the proportion of our people who seek and obtain a university education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 888.]

Mr. Pickthorn: A very good thing too.

Mr. Fletcher: The presence of university representatives in this House has not enabled us to achieve the much greater degree of university education that the United States and many European countries have obtained.

Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I would like to ask him whether he really considers that to have a higher proportion of the population at universities is proof of achieving a higher degree of education.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to get out of Order, but I will say that I do not think all is perfect with the universities.

Mr. Pickthorn: Neither do I.

Mr. Fletcher: Or with education in this country.

Mr. Pickthorn: Or with the Law Society.

Mr. Fletcher: We want many more universities; we want better universities; we want more popular interest in the universities; we want more money spent on the universities; and I think that the Government, during their period of office, have shown consistently their interest in and concern for the universities; but the needs of the universities are not necessarily best served by having a few representatives in this House of Commons. After all, education at a university is in itself a privilege: a privilege which carries with it responsibility, and which ought not, in my view, to be used as a basis for conferring additional and political privileges upon those already privileged. I resist this Amendment because I believe that the interests of the universities can be and will be promoted by this and subsequent Governments on their merits, and that real service to the universities and to education generally is not advanced by the presence in this Committee of Members specifically representing university constituencies. I do not think that argument can succeed.
The other argument is that the existence of a few independent Members, such as are provided by university constituencies, is something of value to the State; and it is said that in that way there can be elected to this Committee a few persons who would not be elected for any other constituency. I admit that I do not think much of that argument, because it is precisely the one used to justify the rotten boroughs before the great Reform Bill of 1832. The opponents of the Reform Bill said that unless there were rotten boroughs certain people who had rendered outstanding and distinguished service to the State could not get themselves elected, and it was argued that the requirements of the State made it necessary to retain the rotten boroughs. But that argument was rejected by the House of Commons and by another place, and has now been universally approved in this country. Precisely that self-same


argument is now used for the retention of university franchise. It is said that in that way, and that way alone, can we enable certain hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies to render service as Members of Parliament. That argument has been rejected.
It is then said that, through the universities alone do we get a measure of independence, and that that is a good thing in these days when party discipline is becoming so strict, when most people are governed by a party caucus and can never break away from what their Party Whips say. That argument is manifestly untrue. If the Lord President were here I do not think he would say that there have never been any signs of independence on these benches. I would have said the contrary was the case. Since I have been a Member of this Committee there have been numerous occasions—perhaps too many for the Home Secretary and his colleagues—on which hon. Members, to whichever party they belong, have exercised their undoubted right to express their own opinions, fearlessly and independently. That claim to independence which I think is a good thing, is not involved in the retention of university seats. There will always be hon. Members prepared to put their own honest independent views—even if they disagree with their party—above the ties of party allegiance and party discipline.
Then it is said—and I mention it only in passing—by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University that one of the reasons why we should retain university franchise is that it produces some very interesting correspondence from British citizens residing abroad, who are also graduates, and who otherwise would not be represented. Why, I ask, of all the many British citizens who live abroad, should graduates alone be entitled to be represented? I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I hope I have indicated why, despite the sentimental reasons—which if they stood alone would prompt one to regret the passing of university franchise—I feel obliged to oppose this Amendment.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I am very pleased to follow a distinguished constituent of mine in the

hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). However, I wish to introduce quite another aspect into the Debate. University representation goes back to 1603. At that time the purposes of the representation were expressed as affording to the universities Members of the House of Commons who would be able to defend their interests. Unfortunately, that aspect of university representation has been omitted from the Debate so far. I want to illustrate how important university representation in Parliament may be to the universities concerned. I hope the Committee will forgive me for introducing a personal explanation, which I am afraid I cannot avoid.
In 1924 the Member for the University of London died suddenly, and coincident with the by-election caused by that death was a movement by the Labour Government then in office to reconstruct the University of London along the lines of what was known as the Haldane Report. That Report had been produced for the purpose of abolishing the external side of London University, in which it is unique. The hon. Member for East Islington is himself a Senate representative of that side, the external side, of the University at the present time. That report threatened the external side of London University, which dates from its foundation more than 100 years ago, and which has afforded opportunities of higher education to persons unable to afford the expense of resident colleges; and that opportunity has been taken advantage of by very many persons ever since that date. The proposals in the Haldane Report were supported by the Labour Party at that date, partly because Lord Haldane was a very prominent member of the party.
When that by-election took place, it was obvious to the university itself that a very determined effort would be made to abolish that side of London University. At that time I was chairman of the council which looks after the interests of external students, and had long taken an interest in that side of the university. I was then urged to offer myself for election to defend that particular interest in the ensuing contest. I was very reluctant to accept the invitation; I was head of a medical department, at a great teaching hospital; I was absorbed in my medical work, and such a step was entirely foreign to any ambition I had previously held.
But it was represented that unless somebody stood to defend that particular interest that interest would vanish. I offered myself for election, and I was opposed by a nominee of all the political parties—Conservative, Liberal and Labour. I won as an Independent, and I have remained an Independent for 24 years without interruption. I have had, of course, my own political feelings, but I have been a somewhat rebellious person in this House. Let me say, in passing, without bias, I hope, what would have happened if London University had actually suffered the fate which seemed quite inevitable at that time and which was averted by my election.
7.30 p.m.
I would like to explain the external side of London University, which has been called, with great justification, the "poor man's university." It has afforded a higher education to many people who could not have got it in any other way, but it has done a very much more important thing. By reason of its privilege of conferring degrees for external students a number of university colleges in the country have sent their students to our examinations, and have built up a reputation for good education in that way. What has happened subsequently has been that these university colleges have developed into universities on their own account. In that way London University has been the mother of a very large number of modern universities. For instance, Reading University was a university college until it got its charter as a university, and the same change is likely to happen with other university colleges, such as Southampton, Exeter, Hull and Leicester. The work which has been done in that way, in the development of modern universities, has very largely come from the external side of London University. I contend that the abolition of that function would have been a very serious loss to this country and to education in general.
I would now like to say a word or two about Independence. I have the privilege of receiving Whips from the Conservative and Labour Parties. It is a very pleasant courtesy, which I am very glad to acknowledge. I am not a party Member; I have never been a party Member; I have never had any discipline from the parties and I realise, of course, that the Independent Member is a thorn in the

flesh of the party Whips. The compilation of attendances at Divisions is one of the prime functions of the party "stooge." He has to make a record in that way to keep in the good graces of his party. That has never been required of me, and has never been performed by me. I am very glad to feel that, as an Independent Member, I am accountable only to my constituents. I have no obligations to any of the party Whips.
An attack was made upon me recently for what was called my "scandalous attendance" at Divisions. I was not present when the attack was made, as I had not received notice that it would be made. I can only reiterate that as an Independent Member I am accountable only to my constituents, and that the opinion of my constituents is the sole consideration I need keep in mind. The fact that my constituents have returned me for an uninterrupted period of 24 years is an indication of the confidence I have enjoyed from them. Perhaps I may indulge in a little retort: the Lord President of the Council was the Member who made that accusation against me by name. I have one very small advantage over the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that he has never been elected twice for the same constituency, in a very long and distinguished political career. I, at any rate, have that advantage over him.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I speak as a graduate of one of the "red brick" universities, as one who has always been proud to be associated with that university, as one who has been a member of its Convocation for many years. Now, not because I am a graduate, but because I am a Member of Parliament for a Lancashire and Cheshire area I am a member of Court of my university. There can be no antagonism towards university representation from one such as me. Nevertheless I agree with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). When he used the phrase "sentimental attachment to the university franchise," it awakened in me a feeling of nostalgia for my own university. I approach this problem of university representation wishing that I could find logical arguments in its support. I would that I could persuade my conscience, in this year 1948, that there was one democratic argument


of merit which remained to support special university representation. On whatever ground I approach this matter I find that there is no real argument of merit.
When I was recently in Liverpool I took my lunch at the University Club there. That is not only the Liverpool University Club; it is open to graduates of universities all over the country. There are many members of that club, and I was bombarded with so-called arguments, all of which began with the words, "Now, what about Eleanor Rathbone?" That is the only really sound argument I have heard. There was a fine woman, a proud Independent Member who was a worthy representative of the Combined English Universities. I regret to say that she was followed by the present representative, the junior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), who is a diehard Tory, who does not represent the proud spirit of the North at all, and who, every time he speaks, adopts a violently venomous partisan attitude. The hon. and learned Member shows little of that detachment which one would expect from a university representative. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment; this is not the first time we have collided, and it will not be the last. We have expected from university Members the balanced kind of speech which we had from the senior Burgess of Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) and the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little).
Although we may object to one or two Members for the universities on personal or political grounds, that is no argument. We on this side support the Government because we believe they are doing the right thing. I believe there is no other democratic country save one, where there is exceptional representation for the universities. It is true to say that this Legislature differs from all similar legislative bodies, except Eire, and that is not a good precedent to follow.
Then one comes to the argument that this is an ancient right, but it is not one of the great ancient rights. It does not go back to Magna Charta. It started off with a bad Scottish precedent in 1603, and it was not for many years that the other universities obtained any franchise. Right up till 1832 there was no university representation except for the older universities.

Dublin had been added in 1801. What are called the "red brick universities" were all added in the Representation of the People Act, 1918. One would have thought that after a war for democracy was not the time to give special representation rights or to make new university constituencies. I understand that the argument was put in this way: To the question, "Why should there be these anomalies"? the answer was, "Let us have anomalies for all." So all the universities were given representation.
What is the result of that? The Scottish Universities return three Members. They have 63,000 electors, less than my constituency. The Combined Universities, of which I am an elector, though I did not vote—yes, I am a plural voter—at the last Election I could have had three votes and at the next election I shall have one, which I regard as perfectly proper——

Mr. Pickthorn: Will the hon. and learned Member permit me to—

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Wait till I have finished these figures. There are 43,000 electors for the Combined Universities; with two Members; 42,000 for Cambridge University, which returns two Members; 29,000 for Oxford, which returns two Members; 23,000 for London, which returns one Member. Wales returns a Member of Parliament with 12,000 electors. The hon. Gentleman who asks so many questions about Eastern Europe, the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), represents only 5,000 electors. Indeed of that number only 1,923 took the trouble to vote for him. His opponent recorded 728 votes, so out of the 5,000 electors only 2,651 troubled to record their votes.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member does not wish to be misleading. Of course, he is misleading when he tells the Committee that he has three votes. He is qualified in three constituencies, but he cannot use more than two of those votes in one election. I hope that he will remind the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. Perhaps he is not aware that I am a lawyer and am quite aware of my rights. I said that I did not use my university vote. One reason was that I felt it was more democratic to use my residential vote and, as it is


still given to me, my professional vote. I used my business vote, and now under this Bill I am to have one vote, like all my fellows and most of my constituents in Crewe. I do not believe that my voice should count three times that of any of my constituents in Crewe. That is a bad principle. We shall never, of course, get one "vote," one "value," for which an hon. Gentleman pleaded this afternoon. Where any body of people in the community is given more votes than other bodies, the tendency in the past has been for those people to use their votes and their power in their own interests. That is contrary to the democratic principle. The total of the whole university electorate is 218,000 people, making the average for the university constituencies 18,000, against the average in non-university constituencies of about 66,000.
Let us turn to the composition of this House. It is said that if we abolished university seats the voice of the universities will not be heard efficiently and effectively in this House. That is a most unsound argument. On these benches are 31 Members of Parliament who are graduates of Oxford University, 15 graduates of Cambridge University and 55 graduates of other universities, making a total university representation on these benches of 101. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too many."] On the other side of the House are 62 Members of Oxford University, 39 Members of Cambridge University and 18 Members of other Universities, making 119 on that side of the House. That is a total of 220 graduate Members of the universities. It is absurd and ludicrous to suggest that the voice of the universities will not be heard in this Parliament. Any one of us would be only too ready to voice any of the demands, grievances or wishes of our own university or of other universities.
I am a graduate of my university and I am on University Court, but never have I been asked by my university to express their point of view. I find it invariably being expressed by the representative for the Combined Universities. When the special representation for the universities goes, it may well be that the universities will call upon their own Members of Parliament to put views before this House. They will find us very ready and able to do so. I see no reason for retaining this anomaly, and I propose to vote against the Amendment.

7.45 P.m.

Sir John Graham Kerr: We are constantly being told, in these days, of the national importance of our exports, but we do not often hear about one really valuable part of our exports, the export of university-trained men to our Dependencies overseas. Those people play an important part in our Colonies, as has already been mentioned by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).
After more than 12 years' experience as a university representative, I can say that the most interesting and not the least important part of my work has had to do with such people. Perhaps I might cite a couple of cases at random to illustrate what I have in mind. One of these cases concerns the Mustapha school, near Aden, destroyed by a flood, the governors of the school having appealed in vain for Government help to rebuild it. The matter was taken up with the university representative, and he took it up with the Colonial Office. At that particular time Aden was not under the Colonial Office but under the Government of Bombay. This resulted in quite a long complicated set of negotiations which at last ended in a despatch from the Government of India saying that they had voted the necessary sum.
I quote another case, this time of an individual, an expert in science. He was a specialist in a particular branch of science rather than in tact. He "fell out" with his administrative superior and received notice of dismissal. His university representative was appealed to, and took up the matter. It is true that the man's dismissal was not countermanded, but after a while he was given a much more valuable post in another colony, where he proceeded to be the head of a great research department, and turned out splendid work. Instances like these tend to make me believe that it is most valuable that these people whom we export to our Dependencies should have the means, through their university representative, of having matters brought before a particular Government Department.
I do not mean to proceed with the Debate because I think it has already brought our all the arguments for and against university representation, certainly those for it. I do


not happen to have heard any particular arguments against it, but I assume that they have been pretty well threshed out. I would, however, add a further point. Most of us have views about education. Some, like myself, have rather violent views about our present education in schools, and think that it is entirely unsuited to these days, and who believe that a revoluntionary change is required in our whole system of school education. But though we may vary in our opinions about that, I am sure that we are all at one in regarding the education of the citizen as one of the greatest and most important objectives. The most numerous representatives of education in our community are, of course, the school teachers. The one or two teachers in any one territorial constituency are numerically insignificant as compared with the other voters. They have little influence with their territorial representatives, but so long as they have got a university representative they can approach him, and he is bound to attend, and does attend, to their complaints.
I have quoted these two points because I should be sorry to think that after its three centuries of history university representation is now nearing its end. To my great regret the right hon. Gentleman told us that the present Government are shackled to that strange slogan, "One man, one vote," whether the one man is a lazy, drunken ne'er-do-well, or one who has shown himself to be a leader in trade, industry or science. However, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government are inextricably shackled to that idea. If so, I beg him, while not not giving up his cherished bondage, least to think of allowing the university vote as an alternative to the topographical vote.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr) must forgive me if I do not follow up all the points he has put. I disagree with his assertion that the pros and cons of this issue have been fully put in this Debate today. I do not believe that the pros of the issue have been at all adequately presented. Most speakers on the other side of the Committee have been much too apt to get bogged down in accusations of breaches of faith and of what ought to have been

the sequel to the last Speaker's Conference. What happened or what did not happen at that conference has very little to do with my case tonight in favour of the retention of university representation in this House. I think that the Government are wrong, so much so that I intend to go into the Lobby against them in favour of the Amendment.
As I have hinted, there has been much too much irrelevant talk and irrelevant writing about this question of university representation. The real issue was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) in his opening remarks. Has university representation achieved the objects for which it was designed, and if not, can it be made to function so that the ends which it is meant to serve can really be realised? On the whole, I think that university representation has been a success. There was some evidence, in the speeches of various hon. Members on the other side of the House during the Second Reading Debate, completely to disprove this contention, but to get involved in personalities and to judge the matter by the impressions formed of university Members in this House, even if in some cases they have seemed to be little different from party "stooges," is completely to confuse the issue. Several of them are, in my judgment, quite indistinguishable from ordinary Tory back benchers.
I am all in favour of variety and I am against drab uniformity in the membership of this House. Too much tidiness, too much symmetry and the application of too many rule-of-thumb methods in securing the election of Members can only have one result: It will lead to an increase of the robot type of M.P. who is completely subservient to the all-powerful party machine. It remains true that at the present time entrance to Parliament through university representation is about the only channel left which affords an opportunity of avoiding this undesirable development which I have mentioned.
As a people we in this country are inconsistent, and it is one of the good characteristics of our national life that we are inconsistent. Our soundest judgments are often arrived at as a result of the sway of sentiment rather than from the application of pure logic. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to bear this very much in mind, especially when he stresses, as no doubt he will, the impor-


tance of the maxim, "One man, one vote; one vote, one value." On the whole, I think that university representation would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) said this afternoon, be more appropriately provided in a reformed Second Chamber, where the university Members would at least be spared the catcalls and backchat to which we are so constantly subjected. But until this idea can be put into operation I ask the Government seriously to continue to make it possible under this Bill for university representation in the House to be maintained in some form or another.
8.0 p.m.
One recognises, of course, that this involves the extension of an anomaly. But this Representation of the People Bill allows far more flagrant anomalies to continue in our electoral system. First of all, let me mention that not every Member of this House under this Bill will represent the same number of constituents, be it in Scotland, England, or Wales. Moreover, both Scotland and Wales have more representation under this Bill than they are really entitled to, as compared with England. Take my own constituency. The body which drew up the new delineations of constituencies, the Boundary Commission, was instructed to have regard to local ties and to local loyalties. That request has been completely ignored in the case of Bedford, Elstow, the birthplace of Bunyan, on the very doorstep of the town, has been filched away from my division and shoved into another. That, I think, is a breach of the proper arrangements which should have been made under this Bill and is an anomaly. Incidentally, it is, of course, offending my constituents in Elstow, and will lead to a slight diminishing of the big majority which I shall get at the next Election.
The point is that this Bill perpetuates a great many of these anomalies. Why, then, should we boggle at this particular one of university representation? I am quite certain that those who are qualified to vote for a university member would very gladly forego the chance of voting for an ordinary constituency candidate. If the number of electors to each university Member is too disproportionate, then I suggest that the total number of university members could be cut down. A point which we would do well to bear in

mind is that at present they represent less than 2 per cent. of the membership of this honourable House. On their side, I think that the university selection committees should be scrupulous in choosing as candidates men who are genuine independents, men who are non-party and can speak for higher education, historical knowledge, philosophy and the humanities. I believe the fact that this issue has been so fully debated in this House will lead to this desirable result, if the Government will have the common sense to leave things as they are. The enclave in the representation here of people who are not hamstrung and harried, as are the ordinary "back-benchers" representing normal constituencies, is a very good thing.
We all want time to stand and stare. We all want time for reading and for weighing and considering the great national issues which are facing our country at the present time. All conscientious Members of Parliament returned by ordinary constituencies are, in my judgment, hopelessly overdriven in these days of stress and strain. I wish that our constituents realised this. We are afflicted, everyone of us, by a quite bewildering multiplicity of cares and calls, and as a result we can rarely collect our thoughts and ideas in a way which is fully desirable. This, I suggest makes it more than ever necessary to maintain this small section of people here who are comparatively free from the burdens which afflict the bulk of us. I should regard the abolition of university representation as a sign of indifference on the part of the Government to these circumstances, and I think it will be thus interpreted throughout the country.
I dissent very strongly from the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that the Government have been motivated by malice and class spite. Nothing of the sort is the case. I am quite certain that I should not be speaking in the sense I have been speaking tonight, if I believed that that kind of motive was behind these proposals. I think, however, that the motive is, at any rate, tactless from the point of view of political standing in the constituencies, and the Government's prestige in the country. I know that in my own constituency the line I took during the Second Reading Debate met


with the widest approval among people of all sections of the community, and this has encouraged me to go on and even to say that I would vote against the Government tonight. The retention of university representation does not involve any departure of principle, as has been alleged. Rather is it based on the broad application of those very principles which have made this House unique throughout the world. I ask my right hon. Friend not to create conditions under which such principles can easily end and are at best likely to degenerate into mere narrow and restrictive rules.

Mr. Lipson: I welcome the sign of independence on the part of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), in that he has announced that he is prepared to carry his convictions into the Division Lobby. I agree with him that it is not fair to say that the Government, in proposing to abolish university representation, are influenced in any way by any ill-feeling or malice towards the universities. The whole of their policy towards the universities, since they took office, has shown that there is no justification for that. I also agree with him that it would be a reasonable compromise, between the two views expressed during this Debate, if the Government could see their way to reduce the number of university representatives.
The Debate has centred around two lines of argument. There has been, on the one hand, the question whether the Government, in proposing to abolish university representation, are guilty of bad faith and whether this House has been committed, and, on the other hand, the rights and wrongs of university representation. In regard to the first argument, after listening to both sides today and on Second Reading, I confess myself in agreement with the Government. I do not believe that the Government, in deciding to abolish university representation, are guilty of a breach of faith, or that this Parliament was necessarily committed by what was decided at the Speaker's Conference during the previous Parliament. I disagree profoundly with them, however, on the question of the merits or demerits of university representation. The Lord President of the Council said that there might just as well

be a case for other learned societies and bodies being represented in Parliament, as well as the universities. That line of argument would be perfectly sound, if we were proposing in this Bill to give the universities representation for the first time; but we are dealing today with a feature of our constitution which has existed for over 30o years. The question now is whether we ought to continue in this Bill the practice which has obtained for so long a period.
Nor do I think that he was fair in assuming that it was class consciousness that made those in favour of the maintenance of university representation bring forward the argument that today the universities are happily much more representative of all classes of the community than they were, and, in particular, a large proportion of the undergraduates and graduates have been drawn from the elementary schools. I should be the last person in the world to encourage anything in the nature of class consciousness, whether class consciousness on the other side of the House or class consciousness on this side. The real strength of the argument lies in this: That today a university representative would be able to speak for a much wider section of the community than ever before in its history, and it is from that point of view that particular argument was used.
In deciding, therefore, whether we ought to abolish university representation after over 300 years, I think it is only fair to ask what is to be gained from the point of view of this House by so doing and what are the arguments in favour of it. It has been said that while a very fair proportion of the university representatives have been men and one woman of distinction and also of independence in politics, they have not all been so. I welcome the enthusiasm which has been shown for having in this House a certain number of men and women who do not belong to any of the three parties. I think that when we talk about independence we should have in mind not necessarily whether that independence goes to the extent of being shown in the Division Lobby, because there may be good reasons why that does not always take place, but whether it is shown in the contributions to our Debates and the general work which this House has to carry out.
I am quite prepared to agree that university representation over a long period has not fulfilled all the hopes and expectations which it might have done, and that there have not been as many really distinguished Members from the universities as we would like to have had, and not enough men and women of independent views, but that is not an argument necessarily for abolishing university representation. Supposing we were to apply that argument to Governments, how many supporters, for instance, of the present Government could lay their hands on their hearts and say with absolute sincerity that this Government has realised all the hopes and expectations which stirred in their breasts in 1945? How many Members of the Front Bench would be prepared to admit that the Government had been able to do anything of that kind? The supporters of the Government would say, and I agree with them, that is no reason for getting rid of the Government. Hope lives eternal in the human breast, and there is always a reasonable expectation in their minds that the Government may do better. Now, so far as university representation functions, it does provide what I consider to be the best channel of all existing ones for bringing to this House men and women of distinction, and men and women not associated with any particular party. I think that it would be a mistake, therefore, to close this particular channel at this time.
It is also true that at the present moment a large number of university representatives in this House are members of the Conservative Party. I would ask the Home Secretary if he will be quite frank with the House in his reply and answer these two questions. First, is it because the large number of university representatives are members of the Conservative Party that the Government decided to abolish university representation in this House? Secondly, suppose the position had been the reverse, and the larger number of them had been supporters of the Government, would the Government then have been prepared to allow university representation to continue? I think that it is a very dangerous line of argument to say that because particular representatives of any constituency are of a political colour different from the Government in power that, therefore, there is an argument for getting rid of that particular type of representation.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I will not keep the hon. Gentleman long in waiting for answers to those questions. The answer to both is in the negative.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Then does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland or not?

Mr. Ede: I am going to deal later on with what the Secretary of State for Scotland is alleged to have said.

Mr. H. Strauss: It was in HANSARD.

Mr. Lipson: I accept the answer given by the Home Secretary, and I am glad to know that, at any rate, the Government have not been in any way influenced by the fact that the majority of university Members today are not political supporters of the party which is now in office, and they have decided to pursue the course that they are doing on what they consider to be the arguments for and merits of the particular policy which they have adopted. It is sometimes argued that the universities do not need special representation any more in these days because there are in all quarters of the House hon. Members who have themselves been educated at the universities, and have, in many instances, been associated with them in lecturing and teaching capacities. I do not think that argument meets the case of university representation.
The universities stand for something that is of vital importance in the national life. They stand, as we have been reminded, for the humanities, for learning, for the arts and for the sciences, and it is a great advantage to the university authorities when any matters in which they are concerned ought to be raised in this House to have definite university representatives to whom they can turn. We all know the saying that what is everybody's business is nobody's, and I do not think that it is quite the same thing, particularly in view of what the hon. Member for Bedford said about the many calls made on the territorial Member of this House from his own constituency, for the universities to expect that in addition he will be able to take their particular problems on his shoulders.
The argument is used that university representation must be abolished because it conflicts with the principle of the Bill—one man, one vote. I approve of that


principle, and I am quite prepared to stand by it. That being the case, I ask the Home Secretary what is the objection to agreeing now that a university elector should be given the choice either of voting in his own residential constituency or voting for a university candidate? One advantage of that would be that those who elected to vote in university elections would be those who are specially interested in university problems. Therefore it would give added point and value to university representation.
If it is argued that the result of that may be that the electors at universities would be very small there are two answers. I do not see why we should be so very insistent on the principle of one vote, one value so far as university representation is concerned. It is quite obvious that even in this Bill that principle is not fully and absolutely embodied. There is a difference in the value of a vote in one part of the country compared with another. That is seen in practice from the constitution of the House in the total of votes cast for one party as against another. My hon. Friends the Liberals have a particular grievance in this matter for which they have their own remedy, but the House on Second Reading refused to accept it. It is hardly fair to insist upon the principle, therefore, so far as university representation is concerned, but any anomaly created could be met by reducing the number of university representatives. Therefore, I hope that the Government are not going to close their mind to this Amendment but that they will show a generous spirit. For myself I must confess I am convinced that if we decide to abolish university representation this House will be poorer and not richer; it will not be more representative of the people but be less; and so that that should not happen I most earnestly beg of the Government to give the matter further consideration.

Mr. Stamford: I confess I find it a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in defence of independent representation in this House. One might agree that independent representation has its merits, but it does not seem to me necessarily to follow from that that one is committed to the view

that the best way to secure that independent representation is by retaining the university seats. I am not in the least surprised that the Opposition should have selected the ground of university representation as one of the main points of their opposition to the Government's proposals in this Bill. Indeed, I should have been very much surprised if that had not been the case, because this is a proposal to remove a vested privilege in political representation. Anyone who has followed the political history of this country will know perfectly well that every proposal to limit political privilege has been met by the resistance of the Conservative Party. On every occasion that a proposal of that sort has been made, we have witnessed exactly the same spectacle as we have witnessed during the course of this Debate.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham seemed to question the motives which the Government have in submitting this proposal to the Committee. The Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) early in the Debate accused the Government of entertaining motives that were not of a very highly respectable order. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on the Second Reading of the Bill said—I do not quote his words exactly, but I quote the sense of them—that university representation was being swept away for the sake of some fleeting political advantage to the Labour Party.
It seems to me quite useless to try to-dismiss this proposal as a rather shabby party manoeuvre. It is nothing of the sort. To accuse the Government of that, seems to ignore completely the facts upon which this proposal must ultimately rest. I have no doubt if I were to accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite of acting in this manner under political influences and for political reasons they would resent the imputation. I have sat here and found it rather difficult to resist the conclusion that political considerations are by no means absent from the minds of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee. Indeed why should it be otherwise. University representation has, up to now, been a political asset to the Conservative Party, and why should they not fight to retain what for so long has been a political asset from their point of view? I am not at all surprised at the


attitude they have taken. It is the attitude we have been taught to expect from the Conservative Party, and the Conservatives tonight are running entirely true to traditional form.
What is the case for the retention of this privilege for the universities? I submit it is not enough to say that the universities send a number of brilliant men to the House of Commons. I agree that it is correct that a number of brilliant people have come from the universities, but a number of equally brilliant people have come from the territorial constituencies. Some of the most brilliant figures in British politics have been here, not as university representatives but as ordinary territorial representative of constituencies. In a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) posed a question. He asked was not this House, as a result of university representation, a better microcosm of the nation than it would be without it? I am bound to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman left the House in no sort of doubt as to what his own answer would be. My answer would be entirely different. It would be that the absence of the university representatives, agreeing, as I am prepared to agree, with all that has been said in their favour, would not diminish in any degree whatever the representative character of this House of Commons. It would remain as it is today with the university Members present.
8.30 p.m.
To suggest that the House of Commons will suffer in its representative capacity and, in the rather surprising words used by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) this afternoon, that therefore we ought to preserve special representation to the better educated sections of the community, seems to be little more than an expression of sheer intellectual snobbery. The proposal to retain university representation is quite obviously against the spirit of our British political system. We are here not, I hope, as representatives of any special interest but as representatives of citizens in geographical areas, and I submit that there is no other sound basis on which representation in the British House of Commons can properly rest. I am in favour of the abolition of university representation. While I agree that many

things can be said in praise of the representatives the universities have sent to the House of Commons, I accept the Government's proposal without any qualms.
On the Second Reading the junior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) went a little further than the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities. He said that the only question we had to consider was whether the House was better off with university Members than without them. I submit that that is utterly and wholly irrelevant to the issue which the Committee is now discussing. Even if the university Members possessed all the merits that are claimed for them and even if they possessed all the merits which they often appear to claim for themselves, that in itself would not constitute a title to representation in the British House of Commons.
The real question is not whether we are better off with the university representatives than we would be without them. It is not whether in any respect the university Members are superior to the rest of us. The simple question is whether this type of representation can have a place in any electoral system which is based on democratic principles. Obviously it cannot. A significant feature of this Debate, to the greater part of which I have listened, has been that not one hon. Member defending university representation has sought to do it on the principle of democratic representation, which is, after all, the most important principle of all. Quite obviously it is impossible to defend the proposal to retain university representation on any ground of democratic principle.
For that reason I am very glad that the Government make the proposal, which will undoubtedly be supported by an overwhelming majority of hon. Members, that this electoral anomaly shall be removed from the Statute Book. I do not on this occasion appeal to the Home Secretary to stand fast by his decision, as was done on the Second Reading of the Bill, because I know that he will do so; and I know that in standing fast by his decision to move a step further forward in the direction of a real political democracy, and a really representative electoral system in this country, he will have the


overwhelming support of the Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Wilson Harris: It ill becomes me as an Independent Member, to defend the Conservative Party against the strictures levelled against it by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Stamford); I doubt, indeed, whether it could be defended, but if the endeavour is to be made, I am sure it will be made very effectively by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler).

Mr. R. A. Butler: There is no need to defend the Conservative Party: the defence must come from the benches opposite.

Mr. Harris: I will leave that to the right hon. Member to develop further a little later, if he thinks fit. Rising at this late hour of the evening, I do so under no illusions. I realise that hon. Members opposite are obdurate in their perversity, and it only remains to demonstrate that if the weight of voting is on that side, we have the weight of reason on ours. It do not want to pursue the vexed question of the electoral bargain, everything that can be said about has been said; all that I will say for myself is that, having read the Report of the Speaker's Conference, having heard everything that has been said about it, I got the impression that there was a gentlemen's agreement and I like to see a gentlemen's agreement kept. However, I know that opinion is not held largely by hon. Members opposite, and it is no use pursuing it further because we can reach no finality.
I listened with great interest and with sincere admiration to the speech of the Lord President of the Council, particularly in those passages where he became autobiographical. There are only two comments I want to make on his speech. Let me deal first with his reference to the electoral bargain. He dealt with great adroitness with one quotation made from this side of the Committee from the Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister referred to a Bill on the redistribution of seats as coming down from the Speaker's Conference. The Lord President of the Council, in referring to that, said it was a Bill on the redistribution of seats and that it "did have to do" with the Speaker's Conference.

That seems to me a very different thing from coming down "from" the Speaker's Conference. When I hear of a Measure coming down from the other place or from the Speaker's Conference, I assume it is coming down in a particular form, with the intention of being passed by this House in that particular form. I do not labour that point, but I think there the Lord President was bringing forward an argument which will not hold water.
The only other argument in his speech to which I want to refer, and on which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has touched already, is when he suggested that we were adducing in support of university representation the argument that a large number of boys from the elementary schools are now entering universities. The only use, and I think legitimate use, made of that argument was to counter the suggestion which some years ago would have had great validity, that universities were the homes of aristocratic privilege. That may have been true at one time, but we have simply pointed out that today it is not true, because the vast majority of boys at universities are going up with public help and a large proportion have come from elementary schools. I do not desire to put it higher than that, and I think that really meets the case of the Lord President.
I shall speak briefly because, although I have no doubt that the House was deeply impressed by my observations on Second Reading, hon. Members will not now wish me to repeat those observations verbatim this evening. Therefore, out of this vast panoply of arguments available I will choose one or two which I have not mentioned before. I take my stand on the single contention that university representation in this House is a good thing for the universities, and a good thing for this House. In doing so, I will say one thing which I said on Second Reading. In considering this contention I am quite sure that present university Members should be eliminated from the discussion altogether. We may be an asset or we may be a liability to our cause, but this question of principle is not to be argued on those personal lines. We must consider the matter in the light of history.
All I claim—and I do not lay undue stress on the argument—is that we would find that the older universities—I mention


them because they alone go back three hundred years—have sent to this House more men of great distinction than any other single constituency. I think that by the nature of things that should be so. I do not lay undue stress on that argument. I think it a good thing that there should be this alliance between legislation and learning, not, of course, learning represented by the university representatives, but by the great seats of learning which sent them here. Universities are very important training grounds for politicians. Perhaps not the most important—trade unions may be greater—and they have never sent more Members of the party opposite to this House than they send today. That is to the good of all concerned. They train politicians and increase the interest of the average undergraduate in politics generally, and in the politics of the moment. I hope on the other side that if university Members do their duty they are able to achieve something here by increasing interest in the development of the higher learning. The hon. Member for West Leeds referred to vested privilege. I do not look on this as a question of privilege at all.

Mr. Stamford: Does the hon. Member regard it not as privilege, but as a right that the universities should have representation in this House?

Mr. Harris: I was interrupted in a sentence which was along the lines suggested by the hon. Member. I hope hon. Members representing universities will never use this House to press the interests of their universities. They represent the desires, aims and aspirations of their universities, but they endeavour to speak in the name of higher education generally. I make this claim, which is backed by the letters I have received since this matter was discussed; the average university voter pays more attention to the use of his vote than does the territorial voter. It is not a privilege which does his university any special good, but he considers it very seriously and uses his vote with great responsibility. It is not a privilege, nor right, but a responsibility, which I think is well used.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could the hon. Member give figures of the university graduates who have exercised their prerogative?

Mr. Harris: The figures were given this afternoon. I do not know whether the hon. Member was present.

Mr. Alpass: Fifty per cent.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Those figures did not bear out the argument the hon. Gentleman is deploying.

Mr. Harris: It is true at any rate of those who do use their vote, to judge by those with whom I have been in contact. We ought not to discuss this matter in the light of present personalities, but in the light of the history of university representation. It is perfectly true that every Parliament is not only entitled to take its own decision, but is under a certain responsibility to take its own decision. Nevertheless, this Parliament might consider for a moment whether it is necessarily right, in the course it is taking, since every Parliament which has dealt with university representation has taken another course.
8.45 p.m.
I am not going to deal with the original decision of James I, which was largely the exercise of the Royal Prerogative rather than the decision of an elected House, but comparatively lately, from the beginning of the nineteenth century, we find in the last 150 years the whole tendency of this House in connection with the university vote has been in the direction of expanding university representation. In 1800 a vote was given to Dublin University, Ireland then being an integral part of the United Kingdom. In the Reform Bill of 1832 a second vote was given to Dublin. On the Representation of the People Act of 1867 a Member was given to London University and in the following year two Members to the Scottish Universities. In 1918, when the whole question of representation was under discussion, the English Universities were brought in and two Members given to them, one Member also was given to Queen's University, Belfast, and one to the University of Wales. Finally, in 1928, when there was a general extension of the franchise, a wider university franchise was enacted. The whole history, as I say, has been an extension of the university franchise.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Would the hon. Member also deal with the 1931 Parliament which decided to abolish the university vote?

Mr. Harris: It did not. I have yet to learn that a vote was taken to abolish university representation. I conclude therefore with the appeal: What many Parliaments in their wisdom have joined, let not this Parliament, in summary and gratuitous folly, put asunder.

Mr. Parker: I would like strongly to support the Government. As a graduate of Oxford University, and a resident in the City of London, I can support both of the Government proposals. It is extraordinary the way in which we hear so many speakers in this House take the line that, because a person happens to have a certain number of degrees or letters behind his name, which may show him to be very learned in the subjects of history or science, he necessarily happens also to be expert in politics. Nothing of the kind. A person may be an excellent technician in some particular field, or have a great knowledge of some form of learning, but that does not make him an expert in politics. On the other hand, the ordinary person, who may go to the village pub every night, may, by discussing everyday matters with his fellows become very learned about matters regarding the Government of the nation. Therefore, I think the whole case for giving separate votes to people who have degrees' and giving them separate representation in the House, is based entirely on the error that people are politically wise because they happen to be professors of French or Greek or something of that kind. There seems to me to be no case at all for giving separate votes to university graduates.
I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), but it did seem to me that the most charming thing in his speech was the argument put forward that there were so many anomalies in the franchise in our system as a whole that another one would not matter. That does not seem to me to be a very strong argument in favour of keeping the university seats. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson-Harris) gave the history of university seats, but I would say to him and the

right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that they seemed to have overlooked the whole history of the opposition of the Left in this country against university representation. History, for 100 years past, has been full of great campaigns in favour of "One man, one vote," and the abolition of this special privilege. The Liberal Party, for many years carried on a big campaign for the abolition of the university seats, and the Leader of the Opposition himself voted frequently for Bills for the abolition of the university franchise.
I discovered a very charming speech by Lord Samuel, when he was Sir Herbert Samuel in this House at the time of the 1918 Act, in which he strongly opposed the extension of the number of seats for universities, and particularly disliked the giving of a seat to the University of Wales, the only university which has now a representative of the Liberal Party in this House. He took the line that it was merely creating a pocket borough and he saw no reason for that. As for the suggestion that we should allow university graduates to vote either for university or for territorial seats, I am certain that if such a system is introduced, the great majority of the graduates would vote where they lived. There would be an even tinier vote for universities than we now have.

Mr. K. Lindsay: I did not want to enter into this Debate, but I happen to have in my pocket a large number of letters with signatures from five of the eight universities which have not been spoken about tonight and which say the complete opposite. They take the opposite view. When the hon. Member makes a remark like that, I must ask him what ground he has for making it.

Mr. Parker: Take the example of the University of London. There are over 72,000 graduates. Only about 20,000 of them have taken the trouble to "contract in" to try to get the vote. That is on the assumption that they can use the two votes.

Mr. Lindsay: I could give the reason. It is a very peculiar university.

Mr. Parker: It is a fact that they have to pay a sum of money for the purpose, but it was only in about 1930 that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge


changed over from the system of "contracting in" to "contracting out," which is the present system there. Even then, we are a very long way from having all the graduates actually registered for votes in those universities.
I take the view, and there is evidence in support of it, that if we were to give graduates the opportunity of voting either for the university seats or for their residential seats, most of them would prefer to vote where they lived rather than in the university, which is a much more artificial organisation for representation. If we were to try to give any kind of equality to votes, even on the present number of people voting, we would be able to give only about two seats to the universities as a whole. I am certain that there would be a much smaller registration for votes for university seats if the graduates had to choose where they wished to vote. There might not be enough electors to return even one Member. It is absurd to make any such suggestion.
I conclude by saying that the case for university Members has not been proved. The suggested possible compromise of people being able to vote either for university or residential seats would not work, because I do not think there would be a sufficient number of people registered to make it worth while, even grouping all the university graduates together in one seat. I hope that the Government will stick by their proposal, "One man, one vote," and abolish university seats.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I was rather loath to join in this Debate, because it is a little embarrassing, but I think that one Member at any rate, representing the eight Combined English Universities ought to be heard. We have heard the representatives of Oxford, Cambridge, Scotland and London, and here I would like to say how sorry I feel that the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Prof. Gruffydd), who is in a nursing home, is not here to speak in his own Welsh eloquence on behalf of Welshmen.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Prof. Gruffydd) would support his point of view?

Mr. Lindsay: If a man is ill, I am entitled to say that we are sorry he is not here. The fact of the matter is that this whole thing has been sprung on the university Members. That is why I put the point to the Lord President this afternoon. I do not believe that this decision was firmly in the minds of the Government when the Lord Chancellor spoke in the House of Lords and when the Prime Minister spoke here. I have already said that I know the Home Secretary's point of view. He has been consistently in favour of abolishing the university seats. Many hon. Members on the other side have equally taken this line. I do not think there is any case in logic or arithmetic or in the special distinction of university Members, and I think anybody who tries to make out this case will probably come a cropper before he is finished. It is quite absurd to pretend that the university franchise at this moment can be defended on any of these grounds.
What I object to is this. I was elected as an Independent. I happen to think that there is a case for the Independent university Member—[interruption.] I will tell my hon. Friend exactly why. I fought three seats in the old days, and the first time I had £5 in the bank. My fare to Oxford was 11s., there was £4 9s. in the kitty, and the rest was collected on the streets or with a little support from the few interested persons. It is absolutely impossible for a poor man to enter this House today as an Independent. Either he has to have very strong local connections with an area where he has lived all his life, or, as in the case of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), he has to have behind him a powerful trade union, by which, as the hon. Member has told the House, he is paid. I am a little tired of hearing the case of my old colleague Eleanor Rathbone being quoted. It has been quoted by people who opposed her tooth and nail, and it has been quoted by both sides of the Committee, but I cannot help remembering some of the things said about her when she was alive and it makes me think. We have to remember that, when she was writing "The Disinherited Family" 25 years ago, she had to fight it out through the trade union world, the Labour Party world and against every conceivable opposition.
It is a pretty difficult time nowadays for an Independent within a party. It is pretty difficult for an Independent in the Conservative Party, but I still think that there is a case for having in this House voices which can speak without being tied completely to any party. We are asked to say what is the case for the university seat. I do not know that there is any case in logic or arithmetic, but I think there is a case. I have these figures: Leeds, 1,694 for and 240 against; Liverpool, 1,638 for and 170 against. We only knew three or four weeks ago that this was coming, and those are the first views of my constituents. I do not know what other university Members do, but I have meetings in all of the eight universities, and, as they are in different places of the country, it is like fighting another election. There are meetings of Birmingham graduates in London, and meetings of Manchester graduates at Preston and Durham graduates in London.
What I object to is having the thing sprung upon us. What is the point of springing it on us in this way, so that these graduates have no chance at all to express their views? I must express the views of my constituents, who have shown their wholehearted and overwhelming opposition. I feel that the Government ought to allow this special con-constituency to have the option of giving their vote, if they wish to give it, and that they should not be disfranchised without further consideration and without putting it fairly and squarely before the people concerned.
9.0 p.m.
If it were put fairly and squarely before the people at the next election, or at another Speaker's Conference, I personally, would abide by the result, and would have no objection whatever. But it seems to me to be a very arbitrary action. The argument which I find so dangerous is that any one party can thus change the Constitution. That argument was so well put by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that I dare not repeat it. It is for this and other reasons that some of us are so worried over this Bill. We still cannot understand why we have not heard the real reasons for this sudden action, except the one that the Labour Party—and I can see their point

of view—are overwhelmingly against plural voting.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This is an old controversy, and many of us remember taking part in it before. We think of
old unhappy far-off things, and battles long ago.
We only wish that this battle might end in the same way as the battle in 1931 ended, with the defeat of those who proposed the abolition of university representation. Unfortunately, we have before us the picture which we shall see in short time of the droves of supporters on the Government side being driven through the Lobbies to support this odious and detestable "reform," except the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) and others who may follow his excellent example.
Like many who have taken part in this controversy, I have read my past speeches, and unlike many others, including the Lord President, I have read them with relish. In fact, when I read the speech which I made in the controversy of 1931, I was astonished that I had so much wisdom at that time, and wondered whether I had progressed at all since. No doubt that doubt is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have, at least, the satisfaction that my Friend the Home Secretary and I have been consistent in this matter because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has always objected to university representation. Though he has erred from time to time from the path, we do not desire on this occasion to take quite the same firm attitude towards him as we desire to take towards some of his colleagues.
We are dealing, on this occasion, with a matter which involves the traditions of the House. Those traditions go back something like 345 years. Therefore, it is no mild or light question that we are considering this evening. However ardent and honourable the hon. Member opposite may be in desiring, for the sake of some mathematical principle, to sweep away university representation, I would remind him that his ancestors found it useful, and that it is not a good thing, under the British Constitution, to remove what has done good and to substitute what may do bad. In fact, to brush aside the traditions of over 300 years is


not a matter to be regarded in a lighthearted way.
Therefore, we attach great importance to this discussion this evening, and we certainly do not approach it with any feeling that the great Labour movement is in any way suffering from an inhibition, or is incapable of taking part in this Debate on the highest intellectual standards, or with any other such motive whatever. In fact, I would say at once to the Lord President that, if I could debate as well as he can, I should be extremely glad, because, whatever one may think of his views, he made a debating speech today. That is what we like to see in this Parliament, and what you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessors have always liked to see, namely, the "cut and thrust of Debate." The right hon. Gentleman even went so far as to say that if there were such representation for the old scholars of his school, he would like to be represented.
The only sign of offence in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was that he would persist, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), and also my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), in referring to the "elementary" schools. Elementary schools are things of the past, and, ever since the Education Act, there are no schools to which reference as such, should be made in this House. I am quite frankly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, desirous as he is to be so correct in his nomenclature and his approach, should have used any such expression. I understand that the Home Secretary is to spend most of his speech defending the Secretary of State for Scotland With the few odd moments he has to spare, I hope he will defend the Lord President of the Council and will reprove him for his language.
I am surprised at the Lord President of the Council, because when I served with him in the Government, I found he was a particular defender of tradition. I found, in fact, that he was the one man who wanted me to preserve the title of President of the Board of Education, and he was very shocked when his right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) proposed that I should call myself the Minister of Education. On many other occasion's he has attempted

to defend tradition in this House and I am, indeed, horrified today to see him taking part as the spearhead of the opposition to university representation and so far forgetting tradition as to make one wonder, as I shall attempt to show in the concluding portion of my remarks, whether political expediency is not his first, foremost and last guide in all important matters.
I believe that hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite are putting forward this so-called improvement in our methods of representation under the pretext of the slogan of one man, one vote—an egalitarian, or equalitarian, whichever you prefer, mathematical principle which I do not believe conforms with the spirit of our Constitution. It has always been the aim of the House of Commons to be representative of the country, and looking back on the Debates that have taken place on this subject in the past, one of the most remarkable speeches on the subject ever made was that by Lord Hugh Cecil, now Lord Quickswood, in the Debate in 1931, which led to the defeat of the Government of that day. He used this expression: "The House of Commons should, by its representation and its composition, reflect the sense of the commons of the Realm."
The first test I wish to apply to university representation is whether we as a House, or as a Committee—which we are now—are more representative of the commons of the Realm with university representation or without it. I claim, in answer to that first proposition, that we are far more representative of the commons of the Realm, as a whole, with university representatives among us than we are without them. I am particularly devoting most, at any rate of the first part of my remarks, to this positive value, as I see it, of university representation, which is the issue before us. I believe university Members represent a type, which would otherwise be less adequately represented in our Chamber and in our Debates.
That form of representation has sometimes been attacked because it is regarded as functional, and many people have a great fear of functional representation. They associate it with efforts made in the corporate State in Italy and regard it as utterly objectionable, and if I may say so, having always been firmly based on democratic principles, I agree with them.


I do not defend university representation as a functional form of representation. In fact, I would repudiate those arguments which have been used this afternoon and which refer to university representation as representing this interest or that. I regard this form of representation as a supplement to the territorial form of representation in which many great interests in this country automatically find their voice in this House. Agricultural interests, the miners' interests, business interests and so forth, find their representation quite clearly in this House in a way to which Burke referred in immortal terms.
We have, in fact, managed by the territorial method, to get into this House interests which it is important should be represented here, but I do not think that we entirely manage to represent every section of the community through the territorial method alone. The Lord President in his debating speech this afternoon, in which he attempted to conceal the weakness of his case, said that lawyers, scientists and medical men were not represented as such in the House of Commons. I claim that it is precisely that type of man, representative of the professional classes, who should have representation and self-expression through being able to vote in a university constituency. I maintain that it is that type of interest which it is most important to have represented in our midst today. Reference was made to Miss Rathbone. I would only say that her most remarkable speech, and one of her last in the House of Commons, was on this very subject. In 1945, in the Debates of that day, she claimed for university representation precisely what I am claiming now—that it is through this means that the professional classes are most adequately represented. I was very glad to hear the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) taking the same line earlier tonight.
We regard the Government's action in attempting to abolish university representation as a direct blow at the professional classes. This is not the first occasion that the Government have attempted to hit the professional classes. The Lord President in his speech said, "We must not be class conscious." If anybody is class conscious, what about the Lord President himself? I have

never known any public man angle in a more naked manner for the support of what he calls the middle classes than he did himself in a recent issue of "Picture Post." In this estimable document, of which I here have a copy, the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), has gone through one of those odious interlocutions which have been prepared beforehand, but which, with the aid of the cameraman, look so spontaneous; and he has gone out of his way to capture the middle classes. The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately, by a series of statements, gone out to try to capture this vote.
What I noticed, however, in this article—with which I shall not trouble the Committee at this hour—is that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the middle classes as useful people, as distinct from the capitalist, industrialist classes. If that is not class distinction, I should like to ask the Committee what is. The right hon. Gentleman is probably more class conscious, and probably more conscious of the deficiencies of his own party in appealing to the nation as a whole, than any of my hon. or right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. I would if it were in Order detail some of the instances in which, whether through the Minister of Health, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Minister of Fuel and Power, most terrible blows have been aimed at the middle classes in this country by the party opposite—to be topped in this instance, by the fact that in this article the right hon. Gentleman does not condescend to refer to the universities, or to education at all.
I want to come to some other aspects of the importance of the university vote. It is important, as was indicated by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), to remember that it is through the university vote that we are able in this Committee and in the House to represent the overseas voters. That is, I think, the most important aspect of the university representation, because otherwise many of those overseas persons would, in fact, be disfranchised. When the Government have pursued their fell design, I am afraid we may lose many of those who bring an overseas experience to the act of casting a vote, as they will be, in this way, disfranchised.
It is also most important to retain the university vote in order to keep persons of independent mind in this House. I realise that in saying this I must expect a natural reaction from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I realise that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) dismissed Independents in the House of Commons as being quite unimportant, and he took from Mr. Oliver's work some small extract to attempt to prove his case.
9.15 p.m.
I would like modestly to put my own impression of the House of Commons as we see it now. We see a House of Commons in which private Members' time has been taken away, a House of Commons from which it is proposed that the university Members shall be extracted. I am convinced that by this double act of killing private Members' time and removing Parliamentary representation from the universities we shall be placed completely in the hands of a bureaucratic Government. We are not to be able to raise many of those issues of importance to the individual which have been raised by university Members in the past. Our time in Parliament is to be very much less well spent than before.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland went on to dismiss a large part of the university electorate as being ancient voters. This issue was taken up by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, and he showed in his speech some of the great weakness of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was going back into his own training and background when he referred to the ancient incumbents who formed part of the university voting machine. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that a great proportion of the university voters today are, in fact, young people. Does he realise that not only has the university electorate never been composed of more young people with degrees, but is now also more democratically constituted than ever before?
Recent aids given by way of scholarship, by schemes supporting open scholarships and exhibitions, have resulted in no fewer than 6,000 students going annually to

the universities with the aid of public funds. If we add to these, the number of people who receive grants for teacher training, and the fact that some 53,800 persons have received one grant or another under the further education and training scheme, the Committee will realise what an immense change has been made in the constitution of the universities, and ultimately of the university electorate. Yet it is at this time that the Government choose to abolish university representation. The more democratic is the university electorate, the less the Government think it right to give them the power of using the vote.
I have been asked on many occasions whether I consider this will be a blow to higher education. I say emphatically that, in my view, it will be such a blow. I am supported by the words of the Master of Trinity, Professor G. M. Trevelyan. In a recent edition of "The Times" he said:
To abolish the university Members will be taken as a sign of indifference to higher education. It is possible"—
he goes on,
to sacrifice too much to the desire for absolute uniformity everywhere and in everything.
The Lord President of the Council asked what were the motives of King James I in instituting the university franchise. I would reply to him in the words of Blackstone, of the Commentaries. When he was referring to the university burgesses, he said:
To serve for those students who, though useful members of the community, were neither concerned in the landed nor the trading interest, and to protect in the Legislature the rights of the republic of letters.
I believe that to be one of the objects of the university Members. It is extremely sad that the Labour movement, after all these years, should have chosen deliberately to affront that republic of letters.
Coming now to more controversial matters, I am asked why the Government have decided to abolish university representation. Summing up what I have already said, it appears to me, in the first place, that Parliament will not be more, but rather less, representative than it was before, so that cannot be their reason. The second point which I have discussed


—the formula of "one man, one vote," without ensuring "one vote, one value"—will not be achieved in this new Representation of the People Bill. For example, under the Bill a Welsh vote is 14 per cent. more valuable and a Scottish vote 19 per cent. more valuable than an English vote—a singularly backhanded method of trying to give satisfaction to those two countries. But if we examine it, we find that in no way, by a mathematical formula, can the "one man, one vote," principle be achieved under the distribution proposals of this Bill. Indeed, the first report of the Boundary Commission was more mathematical than the one we are now considering. A deliberate attempt has been made in this second report, not so much to stick to mathematical formulae, but, in the words of "The Times" of today,
to keep the constituencies with distinctive traditions in being.
Yet, despite that, the Government have decided to destroy some of the constituencies—namely, the university constituencies—which are the most distinctive of all.
Let us take another criterion. If the Government were to keep the 12 university Members, would the House be too big? I would only say that this House as proposed will be the smallest since 1801. From 1801 to 1885 there were 658 Members; from 1885 to 1898 there were 670 Members; and from 1922 onwards approximately 615 Members. I do claim that with the general total now proposed it would not be at all impossible, in relation to those figures of the past, to add 12 more university Members and to give the universities the representation they deserve.
If we look at all these reasons it seems to me that for none of them have the Government made up their minds. What is more, every statement and every indication up to approximately the end of January of this year, as the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) pointed out, led to the belief that the whole findings of the Speaker's Conference would be implemented. I repeat, every statement and every indication: the Lord Chancellor's indication in another place the Prime Minister's indication in this House; the report of the Conference itself, to which

my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds alluded, when it referred to the introduction of a Bill to implement the whole findings; and the Home Secretary's own statement about the recommendations having to be carried out, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend.
When the Home Secretary was quoted as speaking on the Elections and Jurors Act he interjected that he was referring to the report of a committee, the recommendations of which ought to be carried out. I ask him—and I reinforce the point put by the senior Burgess for Cain-bridge University—is it not a very strange constitutional doctrine that before appointing such a committee, he should undertake, as the Home Secretary said he did in his introduction, to implement their findings before knowing what their findings were? There is no doubt in our minds that when he was referring to the recommendations, as the context shows, on 21st November, 1945, the Home Secretary was referring to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.
That leads me to my general decision, which is that the real reason for the Government deciding to abolish the university seats is purely and entirely political. That has been made perfectly obvious by the honest blurtings of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whose observations the Home Secretary is to devote the major part of his speech. It is also quite clear to me, from reading a special edition of the "Daily Worker," which seems to have put the truth in a very short manner. This article, which was written by a gentleman called Michael Shapiro, said:
The medicine that the Labour movement is asked to swallow is complete acceptance of the Boundary Commission's proposals. These are very dangerous. Despite the advantages that Labour may gain from the abolition of double voting, the Boundary Commission's proposals can well by themselves, apart from wider political considerations, lose Labour its majority at the next Election.
That is no doubt why the Government have decided that they cannot face the next election with university Members in this House whose seats, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and according to their own tacit admissions, the Government are quite unable to gain in open contest.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I am pressing this point, whether any further concessions are to be made by himself or by the Government in the course of this Bill in regard to the large cities, because, if that is the case, the whole story which I am now going to unfold in my concluding statements will be even more curious than we thought it before. I believe that there is something even more important than university seats at stake in these discussions, and that is the whole question whether constitutional changes shall be made by agreement or without agreement. I believe that the issues are far wider than university representation alone. The Lord President said in his debating speech this afternoon, and has reiterated in a parrot-like manner time after time, "I repudiate that any pledge was broken." I looked up the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 17th January, 1945, and I find that he said then:
If, when the compromise is made, everyone is going to act as if there had been no Conference, it seems to me that the utility of the Speaker's Conference will not be so great."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1945; Vol. 407, C. 310.]
Putting that in simple language, what does it mean? It means that if you do not stick to an agreement that has been made confidence is shattered between the two sides of the Committee.
I will not go into the question of whether there was a contract. I will give that to the party opposite absolutely; there was in fact no contract made. We are not dealing here with a legal form, and I am not trying to coerce the new Members who have come in representing constituencies in the interests of the Labour movement. It would be unreasonable to think that they should be absolutely bound. The prey that I am going for are the Ministers of the Government who were in this agreement and who are now wantonly breaking it. I say that our public life in this country will not prevail unless we have two public features—one is strong party Government, in which I strongly believe, and the other is respect for the rules of the game.
If we have strong parties and confidence, then I believe that we can carry forward our democratic system as we have carried it forward before, but I claim that the Ministers have in fact gone behind the agreement made when, as

has been made quite obvious in the course of these Debates, the Speaker's Conference decided that there were two parts in this bargain, an interim part and a long-term part, and when it definitely envisaged that the long-term part would take time to carry out. I claim that the Government have been wrong in going back on the long-term part of the decision and only carrying out the short-term part which suited them.
The Lord President of the Council made great play with a quotation from the late Lord Baldwin when, in answer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), that the nobler course would have been to have called another Speaker's Conference if they were in doubt and felt that this matter was not carried on to the new Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, as saying that party controversy was so great that the Speaker of the day would not desire to take the chair at the Conference. As is typical of the Lord President, he did not pursue the quotation further down the page. I have taken the trouble to read what Lord Baldwin said after that. The Committee will remember that the Debate at that time was on the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill giving the franchise to young women and making it universal, a subject on which there was not much controversy. He said this on 29th March, 1928:
Had we taken up the question of redistribution and other such matters as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) specified, then, indeed, a conference would have had manifest advantages, and I should have desired to hold it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1928; Vol. 215; C. 1471.]
That was not quoted by the Lord President of the Council. That remains our views today. We still think an agreement is the proper way of proceeding to constitutional change, and it should be the normal preface to matters on which a constitutional change is desired.
9.30 p.m.
Let us take this a little bit further. If agreement is impossible, which may well be the case, are there no other prerequisites for constitutional changes of this sort? My view is admirably summarised in an article in "The Economist" of 7th February which said:


Constitutional changes are only desirable when they are worked out by inter-party discussion and agreement; or, failing that,"—
I am perfectly ready to agree that agreement might not be possible—
when they are brought about, not by the caprices of political opportunism, but as the result of well-established and continuous popular demand.
We on this side of the Committee claim that not only has there not been any attempt to reach an agreement, but there has not been any attempt to put this matter before the country and to seek a mandate from the electors for it. It was not mentioned in the Labour Party Conference "Let us Face the Future." There is no mandate, and the university Members have been in no way warned, as they repeatedly said this afternoon, that this change was likely to take place. We have come to the absolute ineluctable conclusion that this decision has been taken as the result of a caprice of political opportunism.
We, on this side of the Committee, stand for the ancient traditions of our representative system. We welcome in our midst men of independence and cultured views. We recognise the opportunity given by these seats to the professional classes, and we recognise the importance they assume in the eyes of higher education. We, therefore, register tonight the emphatic opinion, which I hope will serve as a guide to our actions, that before long when we are returned to power, university representation will remain an honoured feature of this House, and that our friends will not be thrust from it by the action of hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): This is the first time that I have had the honour of replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). For about four years he and I sat side by side, and I was always very pleased when he said, "Let me take this one." The skill he then showed has certainly not deserted him tonight, for he is the first person speaking from the Opposition Front Bench who has ventured to defend university representation as such. I hope in the course of my speech to deal with the various arguments that he has adduced in support of that principle.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who opened this Debate, gave about three minutes of his time to a statement rather than a defence of the case for university representation, and he spent the remainder of his time dealing with the suggestion that, in some way or other, there has been a breach of faith between the two sides of the House. Perhaps it would be rather better if it were put as between the people who were in the last House of Commons and the people sitting in this, because I understand that most of my hon. Friends sitting behind me are absolved from any such accusation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not Ministers."] The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) went so far as to say that we were precluded from bringing in a Measure to abolish university representation but that if we had introduced a Measure, my hon. Friends were perfectly free to produce Amendments which would effect the same result——

Sir A. Salter: What I said was that I thought they were perfectly free to express their views against the university franchise on merit, but that they ought also to consider whether, when a proposal has been brought forward by Ministers who were committed to a certain course, they should dissociate themselves from what I should have thought they must consider not to be proper action on the part of those Ministers.

Mr. Ede: It is quite obvious that my hon. Friends do not take that point of view. I will take the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that reforms of this kind should only be introduced after a well-established and prolonged demand. The first General Election that I recollect is that of 1892 at which "One man, one vote," was regarded as one of the great war cries. At every election in which I have participated since, I have advocated this reform. I know of no outstanding constitutional reform which has been more insistently demanded than this one, and to suggest that this is something which has come unexpectedly upon university representatives is really to strain one's imagination beyond breaking point——

Mr. Marlowe: If this has been for so long, such a strong tenet of


Socialist faith, why in 1931 did the present Lord Chancellor run as a university candidate?

Mr. Ede: Because it is a long recognised and well-established principle that whenever one gets the chance one should spoil the Egyptians, and while the seats are there, there is no reason why persons of any political party and none should not attempt to secure one of them. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that at that time the Lord Chancellor was——

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: Changing over.

Mr. Shurmer: What about your own Leader?

Mr. Ede: —standing as an opponent of the Socialist Party. The right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) raised the question of the seven million or so local government electors, and suggested that there was some bargain by which they were added to the municipal register in 1945 in exchange for 12 university seats. This is supposed to have been one of the things finally done by my right hon. Friend the Lord President. Really, I regard him as a far better driver—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—of a bargain than—what does it matter where he is? These 12 seats which are now in dispute, I understand, are not claimed by the Conservative Party. Are we to believe that they were so high-souled that they gave seven million votes in exchange for 12 seats which did not belong to them?

Mr. Pickthorn: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] It is the ordinary procedure of this House. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Lord President of the Council said he could not understand how it was that the Tories consented to this addition to the municipal vote except by way of an extreme sense of the British habit of compromise, and a desire that the Speaker's Conference should be successful?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that that deals with the point at all. I was suggesting that these two things are in no way counterpoises the one to the other. I am bound to say that, from my knowledge of what happened at the time, the reason why the seven million local government electors were added was the fact that

everybody was told that unless there was one franchise for both local government and parliamentary elections, there could be no municipal electoral roll in time for the elections that people hoped would be held in the November of 1945. The registration officers throughout the country said that in the circumstances of the times it would not be possible to have a two-column Register, as used to happen prior to the war, because that would involve a canvass which, even up to the present, they have been unable to carry out, for electoral purposes. I share the view that has been taken by several hon. and right hon. Members speaking from this side of the Committee that, in fact, there was no bargain which could last beyond the time of the last Parliament and that, I think, is proved conclusively——

Mr. Pickthorn: Why not?

Mr. Ede: I think that was proved conclusively by the statement made by Lord Pethick-Lawrence when the matter was challenged a few weeks ago. However, I desire to answer the question put to me by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He asked me: Is this Bill, so far as it relates to redistribution, a voluntary and spontaneous act of Government policy, or does it represent the fulfilment of an obligation? Are the Government free agents to carry or to withdraw the Bill, or are they under a moral obligation to proceed with it?
9.45 p.m.
We are under an obligation to proceed with this Bill in order that we may redress the various electoral anomalies and misfits that have occurred since the Representation of the People Act, 1918. Whether there had been a Speaker's Conference or not, Parliamentary representation had become so unbalanced that it was obviously the duty of whatever Government happened to be in power, and had the opportunity, to take steps to deal with it. I have never defended the existing distribution of electoral power with the many anomalies that have been created in the country and which went unredressed by the special Measure that was pushed through Parliament just before the General Election. Whether there had been a Speaker's Conference or not, I could never have stood for seeing Stepney with three representatives, Southwark with three, Bethnal Green


with two, and the City of London with two. We are bound to introduce this Bill, and at the same time we have taken the opportunity of redressing such other electoral anomalies as we think call for redress at the present time.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has now very candidly answered the question he was so reluctant to answer in the course of my speech this afternoon. He admits he was under a moral obligation to introduce redistribution. Will he now tell the Committee from whence that obligation was derived?

Mr. Ede: Moral obligations arise from a sense of right and wrong. There was no legal obligation, if I am asked to take a purely legalistic line, to have introduced this Measure at all. I suggest that any Government that had been in power would have had to deal with the issue of the present distribution of seats in the country. We have never believed in university representation, as has been admitted—

Mr. H. Strauss: Mr. H. Straussrose——

Mr. Ede: I have given way to every hon. Member who has risen, and I am limited by time, otherwise I would give way to the hon. and learned Member. We were under a moral obligation to introduce this Bill. We have introduced it. It would have been morally wrong to have introduced a Bill containing a principle in which we did not believe. I say quite frankly to hon. Members on all sides of the Committee that, had I been asked to introduce a Bill which contained the principle of university representation, I would not have done it. Had I been asked to introduce a Bill which contained the representation of the City of London as a separate constituency, I would not have done it. I regard myself and the Government as free to deal with this matter in the light of the circumstances that exist today.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Why did the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Lord President agree with university representation in the last Parliament, if he felt so strongly about it?

Mr. Ede: I do not think my right hon. Friend did agree with university representation.

Mr. H. Strauss: He said he did.

Mr. Ede: No one has less right to put a question like that to me than the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He and I were associated as Coalition Ministers in getting through an Act of Parliament, which I believe was a great Act of Parliament. It probably could only have been carried by a Coalition Government. He knows that in order that several issues might go on to the Statute Book, I, in the circumstances of those times, agreed to support and advocate things which, had I been the spokesman of a party Government, I would not have advocated.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of saying that he has always adhered to the obligations which he undertook in those days?

Mr. Ede: Certainly I have, and the Lord President of the Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—preserved his reputation for the period of the Coalition Government. Neither he nor I is now bound to maintain that position in this Parliament, any more than if the Minister of Education now thought it desirable to introduce a first-class education measure I should, of necessity, be bound by all the compromises to which I agreed when I was a Member of the Coalition Government. We are told by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden that constitutional changes of this nature should be made by agreement. There has been only one agreed Representation of the People Bill in the history of this country and that was the one in 1918. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about 1867?"] Does any one contend that the Reform Bill of 1832 was an agreed Measure?

Mr. Assheton: But they had a General Election.

Mr. Ede: Does any one contend that the Reform Bill of 1867 was an agreed Measure? Did they have a General Election then? The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) knows that in neither of those cases was it an agreed Measure.

Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the 1867 case a proposal was brought forward which met with the approval of the other side.

Mr. Ede: So far from that being the case, one of the leading supporters of the Conservative Government of the day complained that the Measure, when it left the House, was more that of Mr. Gladstone than Mr. Disraeli. It was probably even more controversial during its passage through the House than the Act of 1832. We do not subscribe to this doctrine that, every time progress is desired in this country, it can only be obtained if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite agree to it. We believe that we are entrusted with the Government of this country——

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Not for long.

Mr. Ede: It will be long enough for this, any way. We believe that we are entrusted with the Government of this country to see that the ideas for which we stand are placed on the Statute Book and we propose in this matter to stand on the line that we have always advocated. I do not believe that professional classes defend the university representatives in this House in order that their views should be voiced. I cannot help thinking that if they do they are particularly badly served——

Mr. Peake: I hope that in the five minutes remaining to him, the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the main point which I made against him personally. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why, in 1945, he stated on the Elections and Jurors Bill:
… we regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2rst November, 1945; Vol. 416, C. 453.]
Those were the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Ede: I was not attempting to evade that issue at all. My own view is that that phrase referred to the recommendations of the three bodies with which I should have to deal. They were the Speaker's Conference, the Carr Committee and the Committee which I was appointing about that time which was presided

over by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver); but when one undertakes to implement the findings of a conference or a committee, one does not undertake to implement slavishly every detail in any one of the Reports with which one is dealing. I do not now, and I did not at the time, regard that as indicating that I should preserve university representation in this or any Bill for which. I was responsible.

I believe that, as was pointed out the article in "The Times" this morning, to which allusion has already been made, that the constitution of this House has been changed in the course of centuries, and that today we are completing the work which was commenced in 1832, prior to which there were a variety of franchises by which people returned Members to this House. There were boroughs in which, on the day of the election, the agent of the landlord went round with the necessary documents to select men to enable them to vote. That is precisely the kind of franchise which the universities now enjoy. We believe in the abolition of all these fancy franchises. This is the last which remains, and, as far as the Government are concerned, we believe that it is high time that it was wiped out.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. It has not yet struck 10 o'clock, and the Motion "That the Question be now put" has not been moved. I claim my right, Sir, to catch your eye.

The Chairman: Mr. Hogg.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hoggrose——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 323; Noes, 203.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[10 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Baird, J.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Attewell, H. C.
Balfour, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Austin, H. Lewis
Barstow, P. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Barton, C.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bacon, Miss A
Battley, J. R




Bechervaise, A. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gilzean, A.
Mellish, R. J


Benton, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Messer, F.


Berry, H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian


Bevan, Rt Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R


Binns, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Most Side)
Moody, A. S


Blenkinsop, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morley, R


Blylon, W. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Bottomley, A. G.
Guy, W. H.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hale, Leslie
Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mort, D. L


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Lieul.-Col. R
Moyle, A.


Bramall, E. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mulvey, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardman, D. R
Murray, J D


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Haworth, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G
Henderson, Rt Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)


Burden, T. W
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
O'Brien, T.


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Oliver, G. H


Callaghan, James
Hobson, C. R
Orbach, M.


Carmichael, James
Holman, P
Paget, R. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
House, G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Champion, A. J
Hoy, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chater, D.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F


Chetwynd, G. R
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pargiter, G. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Cobb, F. A
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Parkin, B. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Coldrick, W
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Collick, P.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.


Collindridge, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A
Peart, T F


Collins, V. J.
Janner, B.
Perrins, W


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jay, D. P. T.
Piratin, P.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. Philips


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W T.


Corlett, Dr. J
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Pryde, D. J.


Cove, W G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Crawley, A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Randall, H. E


Cunningham, P.
Keenan, W
Ranger, J.


Daggar, G
Kenyon, C.
Rankin, J.


Daines, P.
Key, C. W.
Rees-Williams, D. R




Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
King, E. M.
Raid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kingborn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Richards, R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Davies, R.J. (Westhoughton)
Lang, G.
Roberts, A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Diamond, J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dodds, N. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Rogers, G. H. R,


Donovan, T.
Lever, N. H
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W
Sargood, R


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Scollan, T


Dumpleton, C W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lindgren, G. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Longden, F.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lyne, A. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McEntee, V La T
Shurmer, P.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H. G
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Ewart, R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Fairhurst, F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Farthing, W. J
McKinlay, A. S.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Fernyhough, E.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Skinnard, F. W.


Field, Capt. W J.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Follick, M
McNeil, Rt Hon. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Fool, M. M
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Solley, L. J.


Forman, J. C
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sparks, J. A.


Gallacher, W.
Marquand, H. A.
Stamford, W.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Steele, T.


Gibbins, J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)







Stress, Dr. B
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Stubbs, A. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Usborne, Henry
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Swingler, S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Sylvester, G. O
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Symonds, A. L
Walker, G. H.
Willis, E


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Warbey, W. N
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Watkins, T. E
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Watson, W. M.
Wise, Major F. J.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woods, G. S


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Wyatt, W.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Yates, V. F.


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Tiffany, S.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K


Titterington, M. F
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)



Tolley, L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Graham-Little, Sir E
Maude, J. C.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grant, Lady
Medlicott, Brigadier F


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harden, J. R. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Barlow, Sir J.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Baxter, A. B.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Harvey Air-Comdre. A. V
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)


Beechman, N. A
Haughton, S. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Mullan, Lt. C. H


Birch, Nigel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, G.


Bossom, A C.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Bower, N
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Odey, G. W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hope, Lord J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Butcher, H. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Byers, Frank
Jarvis, Sir J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Prescott, Stanley


Challen, C.
Jennings, R.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kendall, W. D.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Cole, T. L.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Crowder, Capt. John E-
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Robinson, Roland


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ropner, Col. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Linstead, H. N.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


De la Bere, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Donner, P. W
Low, A. R. W.
Savory, Prof. D. L,


Dower, Col. A. V. G (Penrith)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Drayson, G. B.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Smithers, Sir W.


Duthie, W. S
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Snadden, W. M.


Eccles, D. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Spearman, A. C. M


Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon W
McFarlane, C. S.
Spence, H, R.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Fletcher, W (Bury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fox, Sir G,
Maclean, F. H R
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Gage, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Teeling, William


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gammans, L. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, G. N


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wakefield, Sir W. W







Walker-Smith, D
White, J. B (Canterbury)
Voting, Sir A S L (Partick)


Ward, Hon. G. R
Williams, C. (Torquay)



Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mr. Studholme and


Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl
Lieut.-Golonel Thorp.


White, Sir D. (Fareham)
York, C

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'country and borough' stand part of the Clause."

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[10.15 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S W)
Janner, B.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jay, D. P. T.


Alpass, J H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Diamond, J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dodds, N. N
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C (Shipley)


Attewell, H. C.
Donovan, T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Driberg, T. E. N
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Austin, H. Lewis
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dumpleton, C W
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bacon, Miss A.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C
Keenan, W


Baird, J.
Edelman, M.
Kenyon, C.


Balfour, A
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Key, C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)
King, E. M.


Barstow, P. G
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E


Barton, C
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kinley, J.


Battley, J R
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Ewart, R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Benson, G
Fairhurst, F.
Lee, Miss J, (Cannock)


Berry, H
Farthing, W. J
Leslie, J. R.


Beswick, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, N. H.


Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Levy, B. W.


Bing, G. H. C
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Binns, J.
Follick, M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Blackburn, A. R.
Foot, M M
Lindgren, G. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blyton, W R
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Longden, F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H T N
Lyne, A. W.


Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.
Gallacher, W.
McAdam, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McEntee, V. La T


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
George, Lady M Lloyd Anglesey)
McGhee, H. G.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gibbins, J
Mack, J. D.


Bramall, E. A.
Gibson, C W
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
McKinlay, A. S.


Brown, George (Belper)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)


Buchanan, Rt. Hon G
Grey, C. F
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Burden, T W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J P W


Burke, W A
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mann, Mrs J.


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)


Byers, Frank
Gunter, R. J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Callaghan, James
Guy, W H.
Marquand, H. A.


Carmichael, James
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hale, Leslie
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvill
Mayhew, C. P.


Chater, D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Mellish, R. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Messer, F.


Cluse, W S
Hardman, D R.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Cobb, F A
Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, F. S
Harrison, J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Coldrick, W
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mitchison, G. R.


Collick, P
Haworth, J.
Monslow, W.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Moody, A. S.


Collins, V. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morley, R.


Colman, Miss G. M,
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Cook, T. F.
Hobson, C. R
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Holman, P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
House, G.
Mort, D. L.


Corlett, Dr. J
Hoy, J.
Moyle, A.


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Mulvey, A


Crawley, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Murray, J D


Cunningham, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nally, W.


Daggar, G.
Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Naylor, T. E.


Daines, P.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Neal, H. (Claycrdss)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 328; stand part Noes, 198.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Timmons, J.


O'Brien, T.
Sargood, R.
Titterington, M. F


Oldfield, W. H
Scollan, T
Tolley, L,


Oliver, G. H
Scott-Elliot, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Orbach, M.
Shackleton, E. A A
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Paget, R. T.
Sharp, Granville
Usborne, Henry


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St Helens)
Viant, S. P.


Palmer, A. M. F
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Wadsworth, G.


Pargiter, G A
Shurmer, P.
Walker, G. H


Parker, J
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L
Warbey, W. N.


Parkin, B. T
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Watkins, T E


Paton, Mrs. F (Rushclifle)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Watson, W M.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Simmons, C J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pearson, A.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Peart, T. F
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Perrins, W
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Piratin, P.
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Plans-Mills, J. F. F
Solley, L. J.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Soremen, R. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, M, Philips
Soskice, Sir Frank
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pritt, D. N.
Sparks, J. A
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Proctor, W T
Stamford, W
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Pryde, D. J.
Steele, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Randall, H. E
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Ranger, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rankin, J,
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Willis, E.


Rees-Williams, D. R
Swingler, S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H


Reid, T (Swindon)
Symond'S, A. L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Richards, R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Woods, G. S


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W.


Roberts, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Zilliacus, K


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thurtle, Ernest



Rogers, G. H. R.
Tiffany, S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grayson, G. B
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Jennings, R.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Duthie, W. S
Keeling, E. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Eccles, D, M.
Kendall, W. D.


Astor, Hon. M.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Baldwin, A. E.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H


Barlow, Sir J.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lambert, Hon. G


Baxter, A. B
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lancaster, Col. C G


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Fox, Sir G.
Langford-Holt, J


Beechman, N. A.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Law, Rt Hon. R. K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Birch, Nigel
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Lennox-Boyd, A T


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gage, C.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Bower, N.
Gammans, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G Lloyd (P'ke)
Lipson, D. L.


Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Glyn, Sir R
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bullock, Capt. M
Graham-Little, Sir E
Low, A. R. W


Butcher, H. W.
Grant, Lady
Lucas, Major Sir J


Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Grimston, R. V.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Carson, E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Challen, C.
Harden, J. R. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Clarke, Col. R. S
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)


Cole, T. L.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
McFarlane, C. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Head, Brig. A. H
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maclean, F. H. R


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
MacLeod, J.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J W


Davidson, Viscountess
Hope, Lord J
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


De la Sere, R
Howard, Hon. A
Marlowe, A. A. H


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Marples, A. E.


Donner, P W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Marsden, Capt. A.


Dower, Col. A. V. S. (Penrith)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)







Maude, J. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S
Sutcliffe, H.


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mellor, Sir J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J S. C (Hillhead)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S)


Molson, A. H. E.
Renton, D.
Teeling, William


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Robinson, Roland
Touche, G C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)
Ropner, Col. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wakefield, Sir W W


Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Walker-Smith, D


Neven-Spence, Sir B
Sanderson, Sir F.
Ward, Hon. G. R


Nicholson, G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Nield, B. (Chester)
Scott, Lord W.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Odey, G. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Sir W
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Snadden, W. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pick thorn, K
Spearman, A. C M
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pitman, I. J.
Spence, H. R.
York, C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Prescott, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Raikes, H. V
Studholme, H. G.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and




Mr. Drewe.

It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Monmouth, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Maltby, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th March, be approved

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Burnley, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th March, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — HIRE CARS (RADIUS RESTRICTION)

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 26th February, 1948, entitled the Motor Fuel (Car Hire) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 386), a copy of which was presented on 26th February, be annulled.

Statutory Instrument No. 386 of 1948 bears all the usual stigmata of a Statutory Instrument made by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. That is to say, it has the usual careless and incomplete drafting, which is not the result of any lack of competence on the part of the permanent officials of that Department, but is the inevitable result of the ordinary work of the Department being delayed and interfered with because of its energies having been concentrated on or diverted to three nationalisation Bills in the past two years. As a consequence the Minister has got into hot water, in the strictly metaphorical sense of that term, on a good many occasions. The object of this particular Statutory Instrument is not to save petrol and, therefore, I hope that the House will be spared any observations from the Government Front Bench to the effect that the Opposition are inciting the Government to be extravagant in the use of petrol.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe), on 4th March, asked the Minister of Fuel and Power:
What quantity of petrol in a full year it is estimated will be saved by the operation of the regulation limiting the use of private hire cars to a radius of 20 miles.
The Minister replied:
No estimate can be made. The purpose of the order was not primarily to save petrol but to ensure that hire cars provide the local public service for which their allowances are intended."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1948: Vol. 448, C. 81–2.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Encouraged by that reception of the right


hon. Gentleman's remarks, accorded by his own supporters, I suggest to the House that the correct test to apply to this order is whether it fairly, sensibly and efficiently carries out that object. That is the proper criterion to apply to it.
The order itself, to which I invite the attention of the House, lays down, subject to a substantial exception to which I will come in a moment, that hire cars shall not be operated more than 20 miles from the place at which they are kept: that is to say, it lays down a radius of action beyond which cars are not permitted to operate. The question inevitably arises whether the laying down of a radius of 20 miles, or any other limited radius, is an efficient method of securing that hire cars are operated in a manner which makes the most effective use of the petrol allocated to them.
The first objection to any limited radius applied to the country as a whole is that conditions vary enormously in different parts of the country. For the purpose of argument, what might be a perfectly reasonable limitation applied to a car based in the middle of a great city, is not necessarily effective for controlling a car based in a remote part of the countryside. One obvious example arises in my own constituency. Under this order, a car based in the Royal and Ancient Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames cannot be operated in certain parts of the Metropolitan area, because certain parts of the Metropolitan area are more than 20 miles from Kingston-upon-Thames. Surely, it is not very intelligent to provide that, while a car can go from Kingston to Piccadilly, it cannot go from Kingston to, say, Finchley? Therefore, so far as that geographical situation arises, this does not seem to be a very intelligent provision.
It will no doubt occur to hon. Members that quite a number of cars are operated from coastal towns. If a car is based upon a coast town, the area of country which it can cover, if it has a limited range, is precisely half that which it could cover were it based on an inland town, unless it is of that amphibious nature to which is normally given the name of "D.U.K.W." But very few hire cars, I understand, come into that category.
Finally, there is the case of remote country districts. Twenty miles may be a

reasonable limitation in heavily built-up areas; but it is wholly unreasonable, say, in parts of Scotland where the main centres of population are widely dispersed. It is inevitable that any particular figure based on a limited mileage must give rise to these anomalies. That is why I suggest to the House that a limitation of this sort, based on a fixed mileage applied to the country as a whole, is in practice quite unworkable, or, alternatively, if worked, can only give rise to inequality and hardship.
There is a further point as to the effect on the tourist trade. I understand that the Minister of Fuel and Power is going to make sonic announcement before very long as to special concessions to be made on this subject to tourists; but I urge on the Government, as we are already in the middle of March, and as most overseas tourists are already by now making plans whether to visit this country or not, that it is very unwise from the point of view of the tourist trade to lay down this limitation now in this order and leave it to the uncertain future to decide upon what mitigation can be permitted in the case of foreign tourists. At the movement all a foreigner who intends to visit this country knows is that if he comes to this country he will be unable to hire a car to go a greater distance than 20 miles, except in certain circumstances. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who I understand is to reply, to realise that some early announcement about concessions in this matter for foreign tourists is absolutely essential if valuable foreign exchange is not to be lost, simply through delay and dilatoriness in coming to a decision.
Finally, this particular restraint, like so many imposed by this Government, is one which hits very hardly people in a comparatively small way of life and can he perfectly easily evaded by the very rich. I understand there is already a kind of relay system in operation. There is a hostelry upon the Portsmouth road, precisely 20 miles from London, which has already developed a flourishing trade from people transferring from cars hired from London which have travelled their 20 miles to others booked further on in order to proceed into the country. An order which is capable of such easy, expensive evasion is one which prejudices the person not particularly well off and does not seriously inconvenience the very rich.
Once again, I suggest to the House that the method of restriction of the use of hire cars embodied in this order is inequitable in that way. And it goes a bit further than this. The exception made is rather an unusual one. The exception is for purposes permitted by the order and they are specified in the second paragraph of the order. Perhaps I may trouble the House with the very few words in which they are embodied:

"(a) Any necessary and urgent domestic purpose of the hirer, and
(b) Any necessary purpose in connection with the hirer's profession or business "
No definition of this purpose is included in the order. As I understand it, what is provided is that the owner of a hire car has himself to decide whether the purpose for which it is sought to hire the car comes within these exceptions or not. I would be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Solicitor-General, could give any other interpretation. As I understand this far-from-clear order, that is the effect. The owner has to decide whether the purpose—and, after all, it is only the purpose he is told by the person wishing to hire the car—is covered by this provision or not. That puts him in a difficult position. If he makes a mistake, he is liable, as I understand it, to be charged in a police court with a breach of this order, and to suffer not only the penalties imposed there, but presumably also to suffer the reduction or, indeed, the elimination, of his petrol allowance by the regional petroleum officer.
It seems quite unfair to put upon the owners of cars for hire the extremely difficult job of deciding whether, in a particular case, the purpose for which a person desires to use his car is, or is not, covered by these far-from-clear phrases. It seems wrong to put on a man who may not be as well acquainted with the law as the Solicitor-General the interpretation of this particular provision of the order. If I am told that I am wrong in my interpretation, and that another interpretation has to be put upon the order, I shall be interested to hear what is said for the Government.
As the order stands, if I may sum up, it does seem that the provision of a 20 miles radius is an inefficient and inequitable provision, and one that can be easily evaded; and it can only be carried out by putting upon a man who may know very

little of the provisions of the law a far heavier and more difficult responsibility than it is right to impose upon him. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an order which should be debated in this House. If there is a case in its favour, that case should be put before the House and the House given, in due course, an opportunity to make a decision upon it.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
There are three reasons why I believe this to be a bad order, and to be the making of bad law. The first reason is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, that anyone can get round the order. The second reason is that it is particularly unfair on the seaside resorts; and the third reason is that it is not clear upon whom the onus of proof falls if there is a breach of the order —the onus of proof that the car is being used for proper purposes. I think we are getting back to the stage-coach idea, but instead of changing horses at some wayside hostelry now, when making a long journey it is necessary to stop at one of the modern roadside garages and change motorcars. This means that people who, of necessity or for pleasure, make a long journey by private hire car, have only to stop at a garage and change motorcars. Any order which makes a regulation which can be got round as easily as that must be a bad order.
Regarding the second point, the effect on the seaside resorts—one of which I represent—it seems to me iniquitous that, because private hire car drivers in East-bourne cannot go 20 miles out to sea, Eastbourne private hire drivers are going to lose a lot of business. I often wonder whether it is the intention of the Government to deal knock-out blow after knockout blow to our seaside resorts. It has done nothing to help the seaside resorts all the time it has been in power. During the war it was necessary for a great many of our——

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Member say whether this geographical limitation would affect East-bourne, anyhow?

Mr. Taylor: I fail to see the point of that interruption. As I was saying, the seaside resorts were subject to blow after


blow. This was necessary during the war when the people were deprived of the pleasure of going to many of these places. Since the war however the hotels and boarding house industry and all those concerned in the business of seaside and holiday resorts have not been given any encouragement by the Government. Only the other day there was an example of this kind of thing. The President of the Board of Trade had the impertinence—and I use that word advisedly—to suggest that the Americans making money out of their films in this country should invest it in the hotel industry and show the British hoteliers how to run their business. I suggest that the hoteliers' answer to that might be, "What a pity the President of the Board of Trade does not import a few Americans of the calibre of those who made such a quick film deal with his Department, and one so advantageous to them, to help him to run his Department." The Minister of Fuel and Power is taking precisely the same steps as the President of the Board of Trade as far as the holiday resorts are concerned. I imagine he wants the private car owners in the seaside resorts to lose their business and their livelihood, so that the Americans can buy them and show them how to run their business.
My third point is in regard to the question of onus, which has been mentioned by the hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. Paragraph 2 of the order gives as permitted uses,
any necessary and urgent domestic purpose of the hirer; and any necessary purpose in connection with the hirer's profession or business.
To show how misleading the order is, may I say that I do not agree with the interpretation of my hon.Friend. I believe that the onus lies not only on the man who owns the hire car—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if hon. Members opposite, who are not interested in this order, would cease their continual interruptions. This happens to be a serious matter for some of us and affects quite a number of our constituents. The onus of proof, in my view, lies not only on the owner of the hired car, but also upon the user, because paragraph r of the order says,
—no person shall use, or cause or allow the use of — 
Therefore, I suggest that both the owner and the man who hires the car are liable to very heavy penalties if in their wisdom

or foolishness they decide that a car journey is necessary. It is unfair and unnecessary to put the onus on these people. The owner of a hire car is obviously aching to do business and very anxious to let his car on hire for a trip if he can find a legitimate excuse for so doing. However, having let his car go on a trip, he is then in fear and trembling lest the magistrates take the opposite view about the necessity for the trip. This is a bad order, and unless we get some assurance on the matter, I hope we shall divide on it and by voting against it ensure that it shall not be allowed to continue in operation.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: Before I proceed farther, I should like to quote textually, while my memory is fresh, from the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). He said: "This order is a very serious matter for some of us."

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I must protest; the hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me.

Mr. Smith: I repeat that what the hon. Member said was—quote—"This order is a very serious matter for some of us"—full stop—unquote.— [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may think it is funny, but that is what he said. He also said—quote—"This is also a serious business for some of our constituents"full stop—unquote. Just what is his argument? It is that this order, which restricts the radius of action of hire cars to 20 miles, is a serious matter for him and for his friends because it puts a limit on the amenities which he and his friends can enjoy.

Mr. Taylor: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman's "quotes and unquotes," because his quotation of what I said is not only untrue but unsound.

Mr. Smith: Well, the hon. Member will be on record tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If I am certain of anything in this world, I am certain that he used the personal pronoun, first person, objective plural. But just what is his argument? Is it that this order restricts the amenities which he and his friends, in view of their purchasing power, can enjoy, or is it because they are concerned with the


livelihood of some of their constituents, which I admit ought to have the serious consideration of this House? I also have received some telegrams and letters from some of my constituents. Let us, first of all, suppose that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is concerned with the order because it restricts the amenities which he and his friends can buy because of their pecuniary affluence. Nobody would think, after listening to his remarks, that this country was in any sort of economic difficulty. Nobody who heard him would think that the operation of the capitalist system over a hundred years had brought about a gap in the balance of payments position of our country. That is what has happened, due in the first place to the action of private enterprise in getting profit from equipping overseas customers so that they could become our competitors. The hon. Member for Eastbourne, and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (M7. Boyd-Carpenter), would assume that this country was in no difficulty about paying for necessary imports of food and raw materials.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Minister of Fuel and Power, no saving of petrol is effected by the operation of this order?

Mr. Smith: Nobody would suppose that the background of this was one of complete embarrassment of this country in the world scheme of things. I am certain that the House will have been shocked beyond measure to hear the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames argue that the people who have the means to pay should be able to organise a system of 20-mile relays.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Really, I must protest. I hoped that I had made it clear even to +he hon. Member that I was pointing out that it was a defect in the order due to its ill drafting that rich people could drive a coach and horses through it.

Mr. Smith: I am glad to know that the hon. Member is heartily ashamed of what his friends are doing. He says so. Then, he referred to the tourist traffic. I think, if We understood his argument aright, it must have meant that the 20-mile limit should be taken off in order that foreign

tourists could get about the country as freely as they like. What would be the mental reactions of the decent American, who, having heard the case for Marshall aid, finds this country is still so affluent that it can allow the well-to-do to drive a Daimler limousine through the petrol regulation, leap over the basic petrol abolition, and use hire cars?
I have been induced to take part in this Debate by reason of information which has come to me, and for the accuracy of which I can vouch. It has come to me at first hand from one of my constituents, who told me what he did last month before this order came into operation. He took his wife from Nottingham to Torquay for a fortnight's holiday. They went down by hire car, notwithstanding the admirable services put up by the British Railways system between Nottingham, London and Torquay. He left her there and came home. The next weekend he went down to see her, and used the same hire car. He returned and still left her there. The following weekend he went down again and brought her back. There were three journeys of 1,500 miles. The psychological effect on the workingmen in my constituency of a thing like that, which they get to know about and talk about, is such as to do no good to the production drive. These things ought not to happen if this country is in a "jam." That is the kind of thing which the hon. Member for Eastbourne had in mind when he used the word us." It is because this Order makes that sort of thing impossible that I support it, and oppose the Motion to annul it.

10.55 P.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I hope that I may come back for a minute to the more serious side after the last quite interesting but facetious speech. In my constituency, and I am sure in most other constituencies, we have a large number of ex-Service people—[Interruption]—yes, ex-Service people who have come to us and pointed out that they want to start a hire car system. They have been told by the Ministry of Fuel and Power that this can only be done if they were so badly injured during the war that they could not take on any other form of work. I do not know about other constituencies, but I do know that in mine there are


a very large number of these people who are taking up that particular work. It is not unnatural, after all, that they should do so.
When people come down to the seaside resorts, about which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) has spoken so well, they very often come down there in the hope of being able to travel about a bit, and that is why before the present fuel crisis, these men were given the opportunity of starting this business. Now that they have been started, very often with their gratuities which they received after the war, I do think that this House should take much more serious note of what we are talking about. These fellows are now in a very difficult position. The 20 miles limit is going to affect them very considerably.
I am quite certain that there is no one in my constituency who does not want to earn an honest living and who is not as much upset about the present position of this country as everyone else ought to be; but it is felt that in many ways this is a ridiculous order and that it is doing no particular good. In my area one of them has worked it out in the last few days. He cannot go beyond the 20 miles limit, but he can go round and round in that 20 miles up to 200 or 300 miles, travelling without anyone stopping him. It is not that he wants to do that sort of thing; he wants to do a straight forward, honest business. I am not talking about one particular person—there are many. They would want to go beyond that 20 mile limit for healthy business purposes.
But the position is—and it was clearly pointed out by the hon. Member for Kingston - on - Thames (Mr. BoydCarpenter)—that these men are being left in a very difficult position as to who is to judge and who is to decide whether they are doing the legal thing or not. just what no one knows at the present time is quite where the 20-mile limit ends. At Hove and Brighton no one has yet decided on the point where they are to start. If they start at one point they can get to one or two towns where they can do considerable business. If not, they are completely cut out. I do not want to stress this point too much, but I do beg the House to take more seriously the position of the ex-Service man who has put all his money into private hire cars and who

is now finding himself quite incapable of doing regular jobs which were given him by people who were going on worth-while business and who are not now seeking permission to do so because of the red tape involved in getting permission.

10.59 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I want to say a word for the rural areas, illustrated by my own constituency. I represent, as hon. Members know, a considerable part of the Lake District; indeed 600 square miles of that country is in my Division. There are few towns, but there are Grange-over-Sands, a little along the coast; Morecambe, just outside my Division; Lancaster, just below it, and Kendal just in Westmorland. People go to those districts, and they want to see our beautiful Lake District. The journey from any one of those towns to the heart of the Lake District is more than 20 miles. If 20 miles is a proper figure for London, Manchester and for any big city, with vast and complex transport systems available, then it is clearly inadequate for a district like mine. If regulations are made which create unfairness and injustices, offences are there-by created. I submit that everything possible should be done to avoid complicating life for people, and that if there must be regulations and controls like these, the Government should take into special account the peculiar situation of widespread rural areas such as my constituency.
In conclusion, I would like to confirm what the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) said about ex-Service men. There are men, particularly disabled men, who have set up in this business. We are not only imposing unfairness on the whole countryside, but we are also imposing hardship upon these ex-Service men. Let us, therefore, vote against the continuance of this order, and let us hope that some hon. Members opposite will vote with us and show the Government that they must take more care in drafting these orders.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: There have been many occasions on which I have voted with the other side of the House, but I should be utterly ashamed of myself if I were to vote with the other side tonight, for I


never heard a more extraordinary suggestion the hon. Members opposite have made. I feel quite certain that if the people of this country could know that it has been seriously put forward by the Opposition, they would be horrified. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has related some Ministerial utterance to the remarks he has made tonight, but he must know perfectly well by now that expenditure on petrol is expenditure on dollars, and he must also know that we are now pensioners of the United States. He must also know perfectly well that the basic petrol ration has been abolished. It necessarily follows that at the same time we must ensure that the rich will not be able to go where they like by hired car while the poor are unable to go about. That, surely, is absolutely self-evident. Does anybody deny that?
Remarks have been made about ex-Service men. Of course, everybody has the greatest sympathy with ex-Service men. There are two ex-Service men whom I personally know, who served as parachutists during the war—people of the greatest gallantry—who want to set up in business. One has every possible sympathy with them, but I think their enterprise is needed in other spheres. There are many jobs which disabled people can take up apart from the particular job mentioned, in which they would be of the greatest possible value.
The central point is this: that it would be a monstrous thing for the Government to give the impression at this stage that jobs of this kind can be given and that, if there are these jobs, people can make a great deal of money out of them. I have been convinced from the beginning that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was right when he wanted to prevent the party opposite from dividing the House on the issue of the abolition of the basic petrol ration. When he tried to do it, I personally said "Hear, hear" and, as usual, hon. Members on this side of the House thought I was a crypto-Tory. The fact of the matter is that we are in such a desperate financial position today that we are pensioners of the United States, which is an intolerable thing for anybody in this country, and we must get out of that

situation as soon as possible. I will not concern myself about the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames thought that some Ministerial utterance gave the impression that no saving in dollars would be effected.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Read the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blackburn: We are politicians and we must behave as realists in this matter. Take the position of the working man in my constituency who has to go to the Austin factory from perhaps 20, 30 or 40 miles away and who has bought a car and is not allowed to use it to go to work. Can we say to him, "We will not allow you to go to work in your car," and yet allow the wealthy American tourist to buy more petrol? We must consider the perfectly logical and unanswerable argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith) about the man from his constituency who went down to Torquay.
The Opposition's argument really does not make sense: it is an argument that cannot be advanced by logical people, particularly those people who, as the Opposition constantly state, declare that they have been trying to arouse this country to a sense of reality. I do not see any sense of reality in their argument. Is there any sense of reality in saying that we should give people the impression that the basic petrol ration is unnecessary? May I remind the party opposite that there is still a Motion on the Order Paper signed by the majority of the party opposite involving the abolition of the basic petrol ration?

Mr. Marlowe: Is it in Order to go into the question of the basic petrol ration now?

Mr. Speaker: The question of basic petrol has nothing to do with this matter.

Mr. Blackburn: I feel that if I went any further and expressed my opinion on another question, I should be going out of Order. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the view that this dollar situation does require careful consideration but to spend 17 million dollars or so on American films like "Forever Amber" while basic petrol is not allowed seems to me to be equally insane.
I hope this matter will not he pursued tonight, because to do so would give an illogical impression to the British people.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Spence: The speeches tonight from hon. Members opposite have given the impression that because we have seen fit to pray that this order be annulled, it is therefore implied that no order is necessary at all and that we are in favour of allowing the use of hire cars anywhere and everywhere. Our contention is that this present order is a bad order and could be replaced by a good order; but owing to the particular form of the Debate tonight, we can only pray for the annulment: we cannot move amendments or suggest improvements. I should like to correct the impression created by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith) when he was talking about his friend, who probably belonged to the Coal Board, and who took his wife to Torquay——

Mr. N. Smith: My friend did not work for the Coal Board: he is a practitioner of private enterprise.

Mr. Spence: I accept the correction. The hon. Member has said that the production drive would suffer by working men seeing cars used for purposes of that sort, but there are two production drives in this country. There is the production drive for goods for export and the production drive for food. It is those who work on the land and live in rural areas who are going to be hit by this order. I live in Northern Scotland, and my constituency is there, and I will paint a little picture of what this order means. In Aberdeenshire, we have no Sunday trains. The roads are radial from the city of Aberdeen, and if one lives on one side of Aberdeen and one's parents on the other, this order means that one cannot get across on Sunday to see them. That is what I think is hard about it. I would be in favour of an order in which the radius was increased reasonably in rural districts: that is what we seek.
This order is harsh and arbitrary in the way it works, and affects classes of people doing a good job of work for the country, and in the intemperate remarks about this side of the House opposing the order an injustice has been done to our judg-

ment of the situation. We realise the need for savings in dollars. We regret the evasions which can be made to this order—and will be made, human nature being what it is. We would like to see this order annulled, and another laid which would be more generous and reasonable in the case of rural areas, in particular, and in other cases, such as the seaside towns, to which reference has been made. Let hon. Members opposite realise that we do not wish to encourage joy-riding, or anything of that sort——

Mr. Blackburn: If the hon. Gentleman were really speaking for the party opposite, I would never have spoken as I did; but the party opposite voted against the abolition of the basic petrol ration, and Members signed a Motion asking for its restoration.

Mr. Spence: I regret that it would not be in Order to refer to basic petrol rationing or its abolition. The effect of this order is to prevent social contacts between members of families who live in Scotland. That is true, and cannot be gainsaid by those who live in Scotland, and know the conditions up there—or by anyone prepared to examine my post-bag. I shall vote against this order because I believe it can be replaced by a much better one.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) reinforced the strong argument that one cannot make arbitrary rules of this kind which are applicable in equity to urban and rural areas. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was ingenious in getting in his general views on films and petrol, but did not apply his mind to the question. The order has nothing to do with the use of extra petrol: the hire car man gets exactly the same amount of petrol as he did before. The order does not save one drop of petrol, and is another of those ridiculous rules that the Government bring in on what they call "psychological grounds." The Front Bench opposite ought to have learned their lesson from the order which they had to abrogate a few days ago. They brought in an order solely on psychological grounds, and then had to withdraw it because its utter absurdity was brought home to them. These attempts to legislate for a vast and varied community on psychological grounds like these are really quite impossible.
The argument of the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith) is really not worth thinking about. I must deal with his elementary lesson in punctuation. He does not seem to have understood what the order is about. I would remind him, in view of what he said, that the point is that a car hired under these arrangements drives 20 miles —full stop. That is what the hon. Gentleman has not grasped. A car hired in a coastal area has just half the space in which to operate, compared with cars hired in inland areas. This is another illustration of the harsh way in which the order operates—that people in the coastal towns have only a small area in which to operate hire cars. I have had to point this out before to hon. Members, and I remember I did so when we were discussing the radius of operation provided in the Transport Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem able to get into their heads that a semi-circle is half the size of a circle. If only they would understand this elementary truth, they would not fall into these dangerous errors they make from time to time. I ask hon. Gentlemen to recognise that this order does not save one drop of petrol. That has been admitted by the Minister himself in an answer to me.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that no petrol is saved.

Sir William Darling: No, the Minister says so.

Mr. Mathers: If, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the hirers, within the limit of 20 miles, use up their petrol ration that they are entitled to use, how would he provide for them to drive beyond that distance?

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. A hire car operator gets an allocation of petrol now —precisely the same allocation as he got before the order was made. If he likes to take his car whizzing around in a circle, and use up his petrol doing so, he may, but he is not allowed by the order to use his petrol to drive his car the same distance outside the area—or half the distance outward, to allow himself petrol enough to do the return journey.
The right hon. Gentleman seems unable to understand the absurdity of the order.

I know it is difficult to follow its absurdities. That is one of them. He does not seem able to grasp that by this absurdity not one drop of petrol is saved. He interrupted me to say that I said that not a drop of petrol is saved. It was not I who said it: it was the Minister. I asked the Minister a Question last week, and he made that admission in answer to it. It is quite clear that no petrol is saved.
What is the point of keeping in force another of these absurd orders for psychological reasons? It serves no useful purpose in saving petrol, but merely irritates numbers of people, and deprives some honest men, who have been demobilised disabled from the Services, from earning their livelihood in this way. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen can laugh that one off—if they like to; but they may have constituents of their own in that position, and they will not laugh at them in that way, I am sure.
The hon. Member for King's Norton was rash enough to say he was sure this Prayer had no support in the country. I can tell him that I have had dozens and dozens of letters about it. I am willing to wager that the hon. Gentleman has not had a single letter in favour of the order. I see that he agrees with that statement. Then, on which side of the House is there a reflection of the attitude of the country to this order? Yet the hon. Gentleman has the impertinence to say that we have no backing in the country in opposing the order. I can tell him that we have had support in correspondence sent to Members of Parliament. It will be very difficult to find a flood of letters voluntarily written asking hon. Members to do all they can to keep the order in force.

Mr. Blackburn: I am willing to accept a wager with the hon. and learned Gentleman on one thing, that if a plebiscite of any kind were taken in my constituency on this matter, the vast majority would be against raising the order until the basic petrol ration is restored.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not think it is in Order to take wagers across the Floor of the Chamber, but I can well believe that an electorate that committed such inanity in 1945 would do as the hon. Gentleman says.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am speaking not only from the coastal


angle because Weston-super-Mare is my constituency; I am really just as much concerned about the rural aspect of this matter. It is really a very serious problem. Our lines of communication in the county of Somerset, as some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know, who have given us the honour of a visit from time to time, run in peculiar ways, and the centres of train services make it impossible to run these car services within the limits imposed by this order. I mention this as an example of the impossibility of this broad, big-brush type of legislation in dealing with such personal matters.
It would be quite practicable, I believe, to evolve some sort of method, in consultation with transport advisers, the police and local authorities, by means of which different types of licences for different distances could be issued. Whether it would be worth while or not is a different matter, but it would be practicable. This order does exactly the opposite. It takes the whole country, whether the City of London or a small village in north Yorkshire or a seaside town in the West of England, and applies exactly the same general rule. Obviously that does not make common sense in any possible way. Geographical conditions are different. People travel for different purposes. One might have a farmer whose wife wants to go into Torquay. We do not quite know why anybody wants to go to Torquay. No doubt my hon. Friend who represents that constituency will be able to explain that peculiar lure. We have another Member, who represents a Midlands Division, who says that those who manufacture the cars which supply these services are all against this sort of thing and no one of his constituents would dream of using a car on hire beyond a distance of 20 miles.

Mr. Blackburn: I did not say that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that my hon. Friend really implied that. If he was not speaking on behalf of those who sent him here in his constituency, I think he should not have used those words at all. He said he would be ashamed to support this Prayer; I imagine he is claiming to be speaking for his constituents, and I imagine none of his constituents would wish to make use of a car going—

Mr. Blackburn: I said that I would be ashamed to support this Prayer until the basic petrol ration has been restored.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are not considering this Prayer on any conditional basis. I am not being led into a discussion about basic rationing. It has nothing whatever to do with this Prayer. Coming back to the main point, I wish to say that by bringing before this House a general order of this nature, the Government have given another proof that they simply do not recognise differences between the demands of individuals in different parts of the country and different types of individuals in different parts of the country. It is a very typical Socialist order; it rules everybody out flat, and deals with everybody as servants, as the lowest form of human life, placed at the orders of the Government, which happens to be Socialist at the time. That is the principle behind this order. Surely hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise perfectly well that the needs of different parts of the country must vary. If they do, cannot they also recognise that an order of this sort is quite impracticable?
I want to refer to an accusation that has been made from the Government Benches which is completely fallacious. It is not our purpose—in fact we would not succeed if it were—to add one teaspoonful to the petrol which is allowed to those who drive these motorcars. If we were going to submit that these men should be allowed more petrol, that would be a different matter. But we are not claiming that in any sense. All that we claim, representing as we do different parts of the country, is that these men who make their livelihood out of motorcars know what the demand is and equally know how extraordinarily difficult it will be for them to define whether a need is a proper and right need, or whether they are going to let themselves in for all sorts of prosecutions—whether they are going to be prosecuted long after their passenger has left the car, and long after any trace of that passenger can be found. Merely because they are found half-a-mile outside a 20-mile radius, and their passenger has disappeared, they will be liable to prosecution.
I ask the Government, for all these reasons, seriously to consider withdrawing this order. We are not pressing for consideration of an increased issue of petrol.


This Prayer is moved in the desperate hope that the Government will think on commonsense lines just for once.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I want, if I may, to dispel two illusions held by hon. Members on the other side of the House. The first is that hire cars are used solely, or in the main, by the rich; and the second illusion is that because it is reasonable to limit the distance for which hire cars are to be used in urban areas like King's Norton and Nottingham, the restriction to 20 miles is necessarily reasonable for the whole country. These are two utter fallacies. I have correspondence from my constituency showing that 75 per cent. of the use of hire cars is for rural workers in country districts. That may astonish hon. Members, but it is true. In one part of my constituency there are coal mines. The miners like to get away from the district. They can hire buses, it is true. They can hire a bus for a journey of more than 20 miles. But if they cannot get enough travellers to make this worth while, why should they have to be extravagant with petrol by using a bus when a hire car would meet their need? That would represent a saving of petrol.
There are occasions when my constituents, and those of hon. Members opposite, want to play games or even watch them. Those who live in towns have no difficulty in getting to their recreation. But take the constituency of my hon. Friend beside me, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. McLeod). All games are knocked out altogether in the North of Scotland. The shinty championship will go altogether unless transport can be hired. In my area there is one mining village 27 miles from the nearest town on one side, 32 miles from the nearest town on the other side. To go to any centre of civilisation in an afternoon, without losing a morning's work, and to get back the same day, people may have to hire a car. Why should they not do so?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that an agricultural worker, for example, in his constituency, earning £4 10s. a week, is going to be considerably incommoded because he cannot hire a car to go more than 20 miles.

Mr. Macpherson: Suppose that an agricultural worker's family wishes to go to a funeral, would the hon. Member say that is unnecessary? Would he say that that worker should go to the local petroleum officer for a licence? Then again, what hirer is going to accept the word of a would-be customer that a matter is really urgent and necessary? Only a day or two ago I was talking to a taxi-driver who had on a recent occasion been offered a hire of more than 20 miles. He referred it to his boss, and the boss said, "Do it if you like, but at your own risk." He did not do it. As a result of this order, many cases of urgent and necessary hire will not be undertaken at all. It will be impossible to hire cars for these journeys, because hirers will not take the risk. That is hopelessly unjust in the rural districts. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there is a real need in the rural constituencies.

Mr. Norman Smith: In the county of Dumfriesshire have they no buses or trains?

Mr. Macpherson: There are main lines certainly, but the hon. Member must realise that there is not the rail and bus network that there is in Nottingham or in other urban areas. It often happens that a person has to get across a constituency such as mine and there is no other practicable way but by hired car. Hon. Members opposite must shed their delusions. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply—

Mrs. Jean Mann: Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge) rose—

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Lady would allow me, I should like to finish. I hope therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be prepared to modify this order at least for rural areas, because it is very necessary to do so if we want people to remain on the land.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: We have heard Eastbourne, Brighton and Weston-super-Mare, and I am sure the House will pardon me if I put a few points for the seaside resort which I have the honour to represent in this House. As has been said already, each area differs, and it is because each area differs that, in my opinion, this order is bad. The second ground on which I oppose this order is because it can be got round.
I should like to put a case to the Minister. Perhaps the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) spoke under a misapprehension, because he had not the order in his hand. It may be wrong for a holiday maker who goes to Blackpool to joy-ride, as one hon. Member opposite said, from Blackpool to the Lake District, which happens to be 40 miles away. However, he can do it by coach, so that to that extent he will be joy-riding within the law. He cannot do it in a hired car from Blackpool, but he can ring up Lancaster, which is 20 miles away, and order a hired car to come and take him to the Lake District. Incidentally, Lancaster happens to be 20 miles from the Lake District, too. That car can come to Blackpool, pick up the fare, take him to the Lake District, bring him back to Blackpool and then return to Lancaster. In all, that car would do 157 miles, instead of the 108 miles if the car had been hired in Blackpool.
I quite agree with everything that my hon. Friends have said on this subject. It is not a question of saving petrol, because the amount of petrol that is going to be used is governed by the amount of coupons issued to the hire car. The point I had at the back of my mind was presumably the same as that at the back of the mind of the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith)—that we want the petrol to be used to the best advantage. I have given an example of what can happen, and I am sure there are many others of a like nature. Are they going to save petrol? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the case I have put and also with the effect that this order will have upon young slightly disabled ex-Service men. I view that as of the utmost importance. I hope that it will be remembered that when we were dealing with the radius in the Transport Bill, during the Committee stage, the answer from the Government Front Bench to arguments put forward by hon. Members on this side that special exemptions should be allowed to coastal areas because of the fact that half a circle is only half the size of a full circle—[Interruption.] It seems that hon. Members opposite have wakened up.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The light has just begun to dawn.

Mr. Low: The answer to arguments at that time was that permits could be issued by the Minister, but there is no question of permits under this order.
I would like now to refer to paragraph 2. It raises a point which was forcibly put to me last Friday when I went to my own constituency before returning to the hon. Gentleman's constituency to attend a football match next day.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: Did you win?

Mr. Low: Yes, we did. The car hire drivers came to me and said, "How do you expect us—the owners, as well as the drivers—to know whether the purpose of the journey is necessary or is an urgent domestic purpose?" It says in the order:
(a) any necessary and urgent domestic purpose of the hirer.
I would remind hon. Members of the word "urgent." If the purpose of the journey is supposed to be urgent, what time is there to find out if it is urgent? It makes it all the more difficult for the owner or driver of the car to find out whether it is a purpose for which he would be justified in carrying a man in his car. In this particular instance, one of my constituents was faced with this decision. He rang up the local office of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, and the reply was, "We do not know any more than you. Risk it. If you are wrong, you will be called up in court, and will have to explain."Does the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend want to make these drivers and owners subject to daily calling up in court? Surely, he has some understanding of the difficulties which face the ordinary man today in trying to interpret legislation. I hope he does understand that, and I hope that he will get up now and tell us that he is going to withdraw this ridiculous order.

11.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): We have listened, once again, and for some considerable time, to the usual irresponsible talk from the benches opposite; to arguments running quite contrary to one another, as I hope to show, with not one realistic approach to this whole problem. I do not propose to deal with all the differing hypothetical cases which


have been raised, nor with all those points which have been so fully discussed, and answered, on previous occasions in this House. Where there are substantial cases, I hope to deal with them. An hon. Member gave us the benefit of his advice when he told us that a farm worker was in a very difficult situation in his constituency because he could not get taxis to travel more than 20 miles. I would like to know how can a farm worker afford taxis going over 20 miles?

Mr. Spence: Mr. Spencerose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Robens: I can stand a good deal of that. I have had a lot of experience of it and a lot of it more rowdy than the shouting we have just heard. I am prepared to give way when the hon. Gentleman waits until I have finished what I was going to say. I was saying that I wanted to know how many people of the type he mentioned—the farm workers—are so affected in his constituency that they could afford something like £4 a visit for journeys over 20 miles? They are few and far between, and if the circumstances are such as to come within the terms of the order—that they are urgent or necessary or licensed—permission can be obtained. I suggest to the hon. Member that this was a nonsensical point to raise, and one not good either in substance or fact.

Mr. Spence: May I answer the Minister? I did not say it was a question of farm workers, but of those who worked on the land. I would also point out that it is the habitual practice in these cases to join together in hiring a car and then share the cost.

Mr. Robens: A point was raised about what the Minister has said in relation to the saving of petrol. The Minister did say that the purpose of the order was not primarily to save petrol, and the order is not primarily to save petrol. [HON. MEMBERS: It is psychological."] It is not psychological either. If hon. Members will have patience, I will explain as elementarily as I can so that it will be understood what this order really means.

Mr. Hogg: Cheap and vulgar.

Mr. Robens: I have learned a good deal from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) since I came into this House. A very interesting point arose, between the senior Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) and the junior Member (Mr. Marlowe). The senior Member for Brighton almost brought tears to the eyes of the House when he described the ex-Service men in his constituency who were unable to make a living because of this order, and because they could not go more than 20 miles. If they could not use all their petrol because of this restriction, then some petrol must have been saved. Otherwise the junior Member is wrong when he says that this order would not save one teaspoonful. I suggest they get together and work it out and then tell us what it means.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked one special question which I am very glad to answer. He wished to know whether we might have an early statement about the tourist trade, and I am glad to tell him, and the House, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be making a statement next week on the position in relation to tourists from overseas.
A good deal has been said about the interpretation of this order, and one can always take a sentence here and there and make anything one wants of it. What is the intention of the order? Basic petrol was taken away from the people of the country who run motorcars and motorcycles, and petrol was only permitted for business, essential purposes, domestic purposes and so on. It would be utterly wrong in those circumstances to deprive all the motorists of pleasure riding and at the same time allocate petrol so that private hire cars and taxis would be available for people with the money to do all the pleasure riding that they want without any limit at all.
What is the purpose, then, of this order? Its purpose is to ensure, as far as it is possible, that taxicabs and private hire cars will do the job and perform the function for which they are really intended, and that is to supplement the local services in a given locality, and not for the purpose of taking people from London to Brighton on a Sunday afternoon. Therefore, we framed this order to pro-


vide that these taxi and private hire people would use the petrol allocated to them for the really essential purpose that the petrol was allocated. We have taken petrol from the private motorists and we have taken it away, as far as possible, from those who can afford to hire taxis.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always asking us to make orders simple and concise, but if we were to take their advice tonight we should have an order of several pages, taking in every area and putting in all sorts of complicated features on this and that aspect. The 20 miles radius is very reasonable indeed for the real function of the taxicab or private hire car. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as far as I know, are not engaged in this business as taxicab proprietors.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sir Ben Smith is the only one. [Interruption.] The new progression: London to Himley.

Mr. Robens: It seems to me that there could be a better authority than hon. Members opposite as to whether this is a reasonable radius or not, and that better authority is the associations concerned. We have talked to them. They did not like the radius at all, but it was a 15-mile radius in the war and they said, "Well, if you make it a 20-mile radius we think that would be all right." So we made it a 20-mile radius which has been done by arrangement, not with the approval, but certainly on the advice of, the people who run taxis and private hire cars, or at least their associations; and it seems to me that their advice in this matter is slightly better than that tendered by hon. Members opposite.
During the evening we have been able, through the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to tell those who would twist and crook this country, the way in which they could avoid this order. Thank God that the bulk of our people are decent, honest citizens who do not try to twist; and yet hon. Members opposite have been cudgelling their brains, trying to read things into the order and trying to find just how it is possible to twist the order about. I suggest that they have done no service to the nation in so doing. Any line of demarcation is always going to be unfair to somebody somewhere or another, but,

by and large, I claim for this order that its purpose is to try to ensure, as far as it is humanly possible, that taxicabs, or private hire cars shall be used for the real purpose for which they are intended, to supplement the public service. By and large, this order does that, and I hope this House will overwhelmingly vote against this Prayer.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Vane: We have now listened to three speeches from the opposite side, two from the back benches and one from the Minister and, really, there is very little to choose between them. I hoped the Minister was going to show us some justification for this order, and all he has given us is a display of bluster. I am really not surprised because there is so little reasonable explanation which could be offered. When, at the end of his speech, he talked about people in this country explaining ways of "twisting" orders, I thought it came ill from him, considering his right hon. Friend had to confess in this House only last week that their favourite child, the National Coal Board, had been deep in the black market, dealing in firewood to the extent of, I believe, 27,000 tons.
I would like to support what the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said in particular reference to the Lake district. There you have a great many tourists who hire a car and find that it is necessary to go more than 20 miles if they are to drive round that particularly beautiful part of the country which, I think, we all want to advertise, and soon see become a national park.
The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) tried to drag the dollar red herring across this Debate and said that surely we, on this side of the House, knew that our exchange position was difficult. He implied that we were encouraging extravagance in the expenditure of dollars when we are, in fact trying to do the reverse. I had a letter this morning from a hotel keeper in my area. He gave a list of the American bookings which he has already had for the coming season. There are 528 persons who have booked accommodation in this one hotel between 29th May and 15th September this year. If this order is annulled as I hope it will be, some of these tourists,


by their spending in this country, will give us their dollars. If this stupid order is accepted by the House tonight, as I hope it will not be, we will lose these dollars, or I suppose they will have to hire buses to drive them round the district. They will be perfectly within their rights in doing so.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes. 191; Noes, 68.

NOES.


Barlow, Sir J
Lambert, Hon. G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beechman, N. A
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bossom, A. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Smithers, Sir W


Byers, Frank
McFarlane, C. S.
Spence, H. R.


Carson, E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Challen, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Cole, T. L
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacLeod, J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F


De la Bere, R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Vane, W. M. F.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wadsworth, G.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W W.


Gage, C.
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Grant, Lady
Molson, A. H, E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Harden, J. R. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.



Hogg, Hon. Q.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hope, Lord J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Charles Taylor and


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

Question put accordingly.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[12.4 a.m


Barlow, Sir J.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig. C H. M


Beechman, N. A
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Birch, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Raikes, H. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Ramsay, Maj S


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir W


Cole, T. L.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclean, F. H. R
Studholme, H. G


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
Macpherson, N, (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Grant, Lady
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hogg, Hon. Q
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hope, Lord J.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Mr. Charles Taylor and


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.




NOES.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Coldrick, W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Alpass, J. H.
Collindridge, F.
Fairhurst, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Collins, V. J.
Farthing, W. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Fernyhough, E.


Baird, J.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Balfour, A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K, (Camb'well, N.W.)
Follick, M.


Barton, C.
Crawley, A.
Forman, J. C.


Bechervaise, A. E
Daggar, G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Beswick, F.
Dairies, P.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibbins, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gibson, C. W


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gilzean, A.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Diamond, J.
Grey, C. F.


Bramall, E. A.
Debbie, W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Brown, George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.
Gunter, R. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Guy, W. H.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Burke, W. A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hale, Leslie


Byers, Frank
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R


Callaghan, James
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechaoel)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Carmichael, James
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hardy, E. A.


Champion, A. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville

The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 191.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Holman, P
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stross, Dr. B.


House, G.
Nally, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hoy, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Swingler, S.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Sylvester, G. O


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Symonds, A. L.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Brien, T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Janner, B.
Paton, J (Norwich)
Tiffany, S.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Peart, T. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wadsworth, G.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Price, M. Philips
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pritt, D. N.
Warbey, W. N.


Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T
Watkins, T. E.


Kendall, W. D
Pryde, D J.
Watson, W. M.


Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Randall, H. E.
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Kinley, J.
Ranger, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Levy, B. W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Robens, A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkes, L.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wilkins, W. A.


Longden, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lyne, A. W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


McGhee, H. G.
Sargood, R
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Maekay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Scollan, T
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


McKinlay, A S.
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McLeavy, F.
Shackleton, E. A A
Willis, E.


Mallalieu, J. P W
Sharp, Granville
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Yates, V. F.


Mellish, R. J.
Smith, H N. (Nottingham. S.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Snow, J W



Mikardo, Ian
Soiley, L. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Simmons and


Mitchison, G R.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Mr. Richard Adams.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

12.9 a.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I do not wish to detain the House long at this very late hour, and shall say what I wish to say as quickly as possible. I would refer hon. Members to the figures in the last published account of completed houses for Scotland, England and Wales. It would appear that the number of new permanent houses completed to date is 213,351. The number completed in Scotland is 19,052. I do not wish to make any particular plea for Scotland. I remember how well and how nobly England stood up to the blitz and England ought to have her blitz rehousing attended to, so I exclude the figure of repairs to unoccupied war-damaged dwellings of 106,564, which does not appear in the Scottish figures. I confine myself to new permanent houses.
In proportion to the population, we do not seem to be getting a fair share.
Many times the Goschen formula has been referred to in this House. The Goschen formula is eleven-eightieths, and that would give us approximately 26,670 houses whereas we have only reached 19,052; or if we took one-ninth, the amount would be 23,700, whereas we are still only at 19,052. If we take the month of January, the figures for which have aroused a certain amount of apprehension, we find that the total for Great Britain is 15,400 and for Scotland, 1,024.
Scotland has many reasons for getting a preference. One is that the country is so largely agricultural and therefore the Government, in their own interest, might study agriculture further by encouraging a greater building of houses in the Scottish agricultural areas. Secondly, Scotland carries an unfair proportion of the unemployment of the United Kingdom. That proportion is largely found in agriculture and even in afforestation. In other words, we could give employment to thousands if we had the houses to offer. If the houses were there, a great number of our unemployed would take up afforestation and would also be attracted to agriculture.
I am afraid there is something else I must point out. Many people in England are very worried about the figure of tuberculosis in Germany, because it is so much higher than the figure in England, but we in Scotland are bearing in our cities an incidence of tuberculosis higher still than that of the British-occupied German cities. I think that while we hear of shortages of glass, cement and sanitary ware, these shortages are not being proportionately borne throughout the United Kingdom. I do not want to make any special plea for Scotland, though I would draw the attention of the Government Front Bench to the fact that Scotland always did have her special needs recognised and from previous Governments there was always an increased subsidy to Scotland because of her peculiar position.
When houses are scarce, naturally there are subterfuges and rackets. The racket in Scotland is the extortionate prices being asked for houses with vacant possession. I quote from no less an authority than the "Daily Herald," which starts a column with,
Can anything be done about the racket in the sale of houses? It grows steadily worse.
It has grown so bad in Scotland with the bungalows and semi-detached cottages that we now have landlords selling small room-and-kitchen houses, selling single apartments; and worse still, it is within the knowledge of some of us that these very houses are in areas scheduled for demolition. That is evidently known only to the medical officer of health and to a number of the local councillors, but nevertheless those houses are in areas scheduled for demolition.
The only thing apart from legislation—and I must not ask for legislation on the Adjournment Motion—is to operate requisitioning powers. The two burghs Airdrie and Coatbridge have sent me long lists of empty houses which are evidently awaiting buyers. In both burghs, the local authorities want to requisition a large number of empty houses within the borough. There does not seem to be any recognised formula for applying the requisitioning order. For instance, Coat-bridge inform me that they give a landlord reasonable time in which to sell a house. They make their own interpretation of what is "a reasonable time." I draw my hon. Friend's attention to that.
One burgh thinks that a reasonable period might be a month; another thinks it might be two months; another thinks it ought to be a fortnight. I have in my constituency burghs with conflicting views on how long a period should elapse before they ask for requisitioning powers; but both are completely in agreement that there are far too many houses standing empty for too long a period. I ask my hon. Friend to give the local authorities some guide on how they should operate in this respect rather than that each local authority should find a formula for itself.
Now I come to the last part of my plea tonight. It is with great apprehension that many of us noticed the huge increases in rent being placed on council house tenants. It might be reasonably argued that an increase could be borne by council house tenants; but I have one example from Elgin where houses of £17 were raised to £30 last year. The county council was not content with that. It has raised them this year to £40. My right hon. Friend has replied:
As you are aware, the statutory provisions under which local authorities fix rent are contained in Section 47 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, and Subsection (6) of that Section places an obligation on the local authorities to review rents from time to time, and to make changes either of rents generally or of particular rents as circumstances may require.
I should like to point out that while that Section has conferred that obligation upon local authorities, there is a far greater obligation which it has imposed on local authorities though I am afraid that the greater obligation is being sacrificed to the lesser. I refer to the obligation specifically imposed on the local authorities under the 1924 Act, the 1935 Act and even under the 1930 Act that their houses must be at rents within the capacity of the working classes to pay. In the 1935 Act, in Section 45, they are specifically directed to seek out the lower wage earners. This increase from £17 to £40 is not at all in keeping with the spirit of the Act.
I ask my hon. Friend to look into this matter and see whether there is not some ceiling above which local authorities cannot go. He may find it very difficult, because I believe that the Scottish Special Housing Association are playing the same game. In my constituency both the


burghs are having the utmost difficulty and trouble with their tenants, because the Scottish Special Housing Association houses are rented at £35 and the local authority houses—which are superior, I believe—are only £23. I am telling the Joint Under-Secretary of State what he has been told time and time again. There have been conferences held in connection with the question, on which various memoranda have been addressed to the Secretary of State. It is most surprising that in a reply to the local authorities on this question, my right hon. Friend excused the position of the Scottish Special Housing Association by pointing out that reduced scales of rent would result in a substantial deficit on the Housing Association's revenue account; that unlike local authorities the Association has not a reservoir of pre-war houses against which a deficit can be charged and unlike local authorities, the Association is bound by the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
Local authorities all over Scotland pointed out that this would happen, and they could not understand a predecessor of my right hon. Friend in a previous Government saying to them, "If you will only allow the Scottish Special Housing Association to build houses for you, they will build them without any subsidy and you will be relieved altogether from giving either a local subsidy or a national subsidy." Not being able to understand it, local authorities were reluctant to accept this gift horse, and ultimately deputations had to be sent from the Department to persuade Glasgow to build 2,000 houses and to persuade Coatbridge and Aidrie to permit houses to be built.
When the houses were built, of course, there was no local authority subsidy. The tenants had to pay. That is why we find the rents of those houses are £35, whereas the local authority houses are rented at £23. I suggest that local authorities can do this job better and more cheaply than the Scottish Special Housing Association. I agree that there is a place for the Association. There are reactionary local authorities who will not build at all, and a great many who need assistance. There are many who cannot get contractors so easily as in my own constituency, but the whole question of these rents has to

be settled and in fairness to the local authorities, the Scottish Office ought to see that a further grant is made from the Treasury. Otherwise, the promise to the local authorities will be broken.

12.26 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I wish that I had had a little more time to deal more exhaustively than I shall be able to do with the points which my hon. Friend has raised tonight. I shall endeavour, however, to deal as adequately as I can with them. I share with the hon. Lady the disappointment we all feel at the Scottish Office—the Secretary of State, and all those who are concerned with these matters—at the drop in the number of completed houses in Scotland during January; but there were causes—and I am not trying to make excuses—over which we had no control. First, whereas the figures for December were taken over five weeks, in January they were for only four weeks. Furthermore, one has to remember that Scotland still chooses the right to have holidays at the new year rather than at Christmas-time, so there was a period when there was not the same intensive building as at other times of the year. That is not the whole reason for the drop.
Among other reasons were the shortage of glass and certain essential materials. Glass was particularly short, and that was in some part due to the fact that we had used rather more glass than we had expected during December. There was also a shortage of hard wall plaster. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Lady that we have taken steps to see that this will not occur again, and she will find that the allowance of glass has been considerably increased. The difficulty we experienced in these materials for the finishing trades is largely because almost everything is in the pipeline running to the housing sites, very often from considerable distances. I would refer particularly to cement, which has to be brought from the South of England. There we have difficulties in transport.
All these matters have tended to make it very difficult to get a steady stream of houses erected as quickly as we would like. We are, however, taking steps, and the Ministries of Works and Supply and


the Department of Health for Scotland are co-operating extremely well. There is a progressing and steady flow of materials so essential to the completion of houses. I am glad to inform the House, though perhaps it would be a little premature to give exact figures, that the total for February shows a gratifying increase over those of the previous month. With the arrangements I have referred to in operation I would prophesy that the increase which has been manifested during February will be maintained.
I would like to turn to the other points in the speech of my hon. Friend which related to the requisitioning of vacant properties. I find that while the number of properties which are available for requisitioning is diminishing we have very little difference between the figure for the last quarter of last year, and that for the last quarter of the previous year. The problem is one on which we must have the co-operation and assistance of local authorities. We should also have the cooperation of people who have knowledge of empty properties which ought to be requisitioned. I would mention the example of Glasgow, where the local authority carefully watches the advertising columns of the newspapers for properties which are vacant or "for sale." When they discover that some of these are available for a long period they take steps to requisition them. If the hon. Lady knows of any case in her constituency and is kind enough to let us know, we will take steps to see that action is taken.

Mrs. Mann: Would my hon. Friend say what is regarded as a reasonable period to give an owner before applying for powers to requisition?

Mr. Robertson: It is very difficult to say, but when the local authority takes action the owner is given a fortnight to make representations, which may refer to having the house occupied or disposed of in another way. It is difficult for a local authority to dictate how long a house should be in the market for sale. I hope local authorities will realise their responsibilities in this matter and not let houses be available for sale for too long a period. If, however, the hon. Member has any knowledge of houses which have been vacant for a long period, I hope she will either get in touch with the local authority or bring the matter to the notice of the

Scottish Office. We have, however, no evidence of any recent cases of a number of small houses being offered for sale.
I want to turn to the other question of increased rents, and I would like to concentrate my remarks upon the questions raised with regard to the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is perfectly true that the association has rents which are somewhat in excess of those of the rents of local authority houses. There are reasons for that. We appreciate this anomaly and understand that. We are made aware of it from time to time by local authorities bringing it to our notice. The average rents, however, throughout Scotland for the rural areas is from £29 to £35, and slightly higher for the urban areas. It is very difficult to find a solution to this question, or to decide on the necessary action which might bring them into line with the local authority rents. There are, however, certain benefits which, I hope, will not be lost sight of, in having the Scottish Special Housing Association operating in Scotland. We have, for example, a short-term programme under the association for the building of 10,000 houses and a longterm programme for the building of 100,000 houses.
What does this represent to Scotland as a whole? I hope local authorities will bear in mind that these houses are provided for the local authority without any cost whatsoever. I was looking into the example of Coatbridge, to discover how they would benefit. I discovered that the benefit is considerable. They have a programme of 514 four-apartment houses and I find that the revenue which Coatbridge will be likely to get from these houses in rates after they have been completed, amounts to something in the region of about £11,000 per annum. That is a considerable sum in the way of income without any expenditure, or very little expenditure, for services on the part of the local authority, so that there is considerable gain to the local authority.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that if the local authority increased its own houses to the rents of the Scottish Special Housing Association, there would be a still further considerable gain?

Mr. Robertson: I have only half a minute to reply. It is not easy to get over


this difficulty unless we act on the suggestion of the hon. Member to go to the Treasury to ask for an additional grant in order to equate the rents of the local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and at this juncture in our

national misfortunes we feel that we cannot possibly do that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to One o'Clock.